(08-31-2017 08:44 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 08:35 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 08:33 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 08:28 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  I don't see many differences from last year.

I see none, this is still a very poor football team..... will need two or three recruiting periods to purge this mess.

Talent is there, it's not talent

You are wrong, there may be some in a few areas, but in important areas (offensive line, you know, where games are won) there is very, very little. Very mediocre talent throughout this team.

There was some discussion in the Game Day Austin Peay thread about recruiting ratings and their validity. I thought the board might like a breakaway discussion on this topic.

I believe recruiting rankings are slanted for traditional P5 members so my thought process for this discussion was "How do our recruiting rankings compare to our results as measured by the Sagarin Rating.” In order to be fair you need to look at a class and give it 4 years to mature.

The recruiting rankings also don't take into effect defections, drop outs etc. that fail to show up (as we all know Cincinnati has had a few of those)

This is an update I did to an analysis I did two years ago that I found as this topic comes up quite often (people blaming the level of talent on the team vice preparation, execution, coaching, etc.)

So:

Year Sagarin Ranking Rivals Recruiting Ranking

2017 87 61
2016 117 75
2015 75 57
2014 57 69
2013 67 71
2012 36 50
2011 30 49
2010 67 59
2009 8 60
2008 34 67
2007 19 90
2006 43 109
2005 95 95
2004 65 146
2003 96 92
2002 59 101

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2017/...s/football (use drop down menu for year)

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

My Takeaways:

1. I already knew this but the program has come a long way since 2002 – 2006.

2. I also knew this but Brian Kelly was amazing for UC, his #8 Sagarin Rating was achieved with a senior class rated 109th best

3. TT is under-performed compared to the other coaches (I suspect this is what the board will focus on)

4. Either the recruiting ratings are grossly inaccurate or UC has had vastly under-rated classes.

5. Recruiting rankings under TT were not far off from historical ratings.


6. I agree OL is a problem area.

Have at it

We've struggled to get/keep offensive lineman. Quite a few injuries have ended careers early. Interior D linemen have been tough to come by.

I think Luke Fickell did a good job summarizing our recruiting today. He mentioned the difference between us and Michigan isnt too far off as far as top 22 goes, but the depth is where the difference is noticeable. We need to do a better job of having 8-9 starting caliber DL, rather than 2-3 really good ones with quality AAC backup level behind them. We need to upgrade the depth throughout. If we recruit 22 guys, 15-18 need to be future contributors.

We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

CTT has left us crap from the standpoint of an investor in the program. It will take years to recover from where we are today.

Top it all off with a home schedule that screams waste of my money.

UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

(09-05-2017 04:44 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

CTT has left us crap from the standpoint of an investor in the program. It will take years to recover from where we are today.

Top it all off with a home schedule that screams waste of my money.

UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

It's not talent overall, IMO

I do agree we aren't 2 deep

(09-05-2017 04:51 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 04:44 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

CTT has left us crap from the standpoint of an investor in the program. It will take years to recover from where we are today.

Top it all off with a home schedule that screams waste of my money.

UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

It's not talent overall, IMO

I do agree we aren't 2 deep

Agree it is not talent. There are two issues:

1)player development- especially the seniors

2) youth and inexperience- we have 49 redshirt and true freshman on this rosters plus we are asking a lot from sophomores like Perfy Young, Geddis, Rollins, Copeland, etc

I wholly disagree with the idea that TT left us sorely lacking in talent. We're on par with our conference mates. IMO. Years to recover? Not hardly. With the infusion of upper level (relative to our historical recruiting hauls) talent - and perhaps most importantly - better coaching and development there's no reason why we won't be an annual contender in our conference. Look at the slide we had when we lost our competent OC and replaced him with a guy who's a stiff. I think we have the opportunity to turn it around with coaching, a more than slight upgrade in talent, and some player development.

About conference - tho many on here like to place all blame on AAC, we're recruiting roughly on the same level as we did when we went to BCS bowl games. The avg rankings are closer than most would have us believe. That said, absolutely we would be in a better position were we in a P5, however the story doesn't end with that explanation. At least IMO.

Anywho, currently we have a good young crop of RBs, LBs, DBs, along with some talent along the DL. Areas of need are OL (notoriously the most difficult position to recruit for), QB, and tho we have solid talent we could use more bodies along the DL. WRs have potential. It's not a total disaster by any means. We're young af....but we're not devoid of talent.

All G5 schools are going to have the depth issue. It's the nature of the beast. For that part, most schools have the same issue. Outside of the 'Bamas/ OSU/ etc of the world you don't typically get really really deep up and down the roster.




mc

I think the issue with recruiting is that when it comes to the top level guys we've had bad luck. Either they've been had character problems (only a few), had gotten injured, or never made it to campus. The issue is, with such a low number of 5/4 star guys, you need them to hit because you can't replace as easily as the top programs. When you have as few resources as UC has relative to P5 teams, you can't miss. That includes missing in the Orange and Sugar Bowls. You just can't miss on those and expect to recover quickly.

Misses from the top of my head - Travis Johnson (4), Gunner Kiel (5), Latwan Anderson (5), Torrance Gibson (5), Dyjuan Lewis (4), Jamar Howard (4), Jamael Poteet (4) and I am sure there are a bunch of others.

Also, I think the biggest difference is in the trenches. There is a huge gap between P5 and us when it comes to OL and DL, and another (although smaller) gap between UC and FCS. There isn't that big of a difference aside from NFL 1st rounders in skill players.

I was looking at NFL players by college yesterday and it's shocking the difference between some average P5 schools and us - a school like Cal has more than twice the amount of NFL players as UC.

Just looked at the number of Bearcats in the NFL. Total 16 that is more the 8 teams in the ACC and more then some teams in the So called P5.

I think there are 2 areas that have lacked in recruiting since Dantonio left. And one that has lacked when Kelly left. First the OL and DL have tailed off since Dantonio left for Michigan State. We have had a few great ones but we have never been able to get a great group of guys. The QB is what is the issue right now. Hayden has now got happy feet and his head maybe on a swivel which is not good. It will take a couple for recruiting class to fix the OL and DL.

(09-05-2017 04:44 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

Oh, the drama. It's a one game sample size for an entirely new staff.

Quote:UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

More drama. Here's some UC's Season ticket info:

Quote:Season-ticket packages start at $99 or $16.50 per game in the Coach's Corner in section 127, 101 and 201.

Season-ticket prices have remained the same in all areas with the exception of the Bearcats Lair in north end zone sections 131-135 where the price was reduced to $125.

Additional season-ticket holder benefits include an exclusive gift, season-ticket holder only events, access to the same seat location for all six games at Nippert Stadium, merchandise discounts at the UC Bookstore and the chance to place a $50 deposit for tickets to the Bearcats game at Michigan. Season ticket purchases benefit the UCATS Athletics Scholarship Fund.

...// NEW FAMILY PLAN OPTION
· The Bearcats will introduce the new Aquafina Family Section in Nippert Stadium. Tickets in section 202 are $99 for adults and $75 for children (ages 4-high school).

Now let's compare that to this week's "major league" opponent SINGLE game ticket prices:



and that's only if tickets are still available following the donor purchases:



and that doesn't even factor in the views from the seats...

(09-05-2017 04:44 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

CTT has left us crap from the standpoint of an investor in the program. It will take years to recover from where we are today.

Top it all off with a home schedule that screams waste of my money.

UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

It used to not be that way. Oh No!

(09-05-2017 04:44 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

CTT has left us crap from the standpoint of an investor in the program. It will take years to recover from where we are today.

Top it all off with a home schedule that screams waste of my money.

UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

Major league money? Man, i guess you do not have Bengal or Reds tickets. This program has won a boat load of games and has been to a bunch of bowls the past 10 years or so. I guess you joined the party late.

(09-05-2017 08:24 PM)Nobones Wrote:  I think there are 2 areas that have lacked in recruiting since Dantonio left. And one that has lacked when Kelly left. First the OL and DL have tailed off since Dantonio left for Michigan State. We have had a few great ones but we have never been able to get a great group of guys. The QB is what is the issue right now. Hayden has now got happy feet and his head maybe on a swivel which is not good. It will take a couple for recruiting class to fix the OL and DL.

Our offensive lines were actually pretty solid during the CBJ years. Tub's first group in 2013 (all inherited) were: Sam Longo, Eric Lefeld, Austen Bujnoch, Abdre Cureton, Tyreek Burwell, Parker Ehinger and youngsters Deyshawn Bond, Ryan Leahy and Justin Murray. That's pretty significant depth.

The issue is Tubs could not recruit OL-- a big factor was his inability to recruit in the Midwest, where most of OL have historically come from. Over the years UC has brought in a ton of skilled players from Florida and Georgia, but for whatever reason we never seem to get the offensive linemen from those area.

I really appreciate the current regime's focus on the lines. In my extensive video game experience with both Madden and NCAA, I always started with the lines. You can get away with having non-superstar skill players if they have a line that gets a big push for the run or gives them tons of time to pass.

[quote='marcuscan' pid='14558853' dateline='1504651525']
I wholly disagree with the idea that TT left us sorely lacking in talent. We're on par with our conference mates. IMO. Years to recover? Not hardly. With the infusion of upper level (relative to our historical recruiting hauls) talent - and perhaps most importantly - better coaching and development there's no reason why we won't be an annual contender in our conference. Look at the slide we had when we lost our competent OC and replaced him with a guy who's a stiff. I think we have the opportunity to turn it around with coaching, a more than slight upgrade in talent, and some player development.

About conference - tho many on here like to place all blame on AAC, we're recruiting roughly on the same level as we did when we went to BCS bowl games. The avg rankings are closer than most would have us believe. That said, absolutely we would be in a better position were we in a P5, however the story doesn't end with that explanation. At least IMO.

Anywho, currently we have a good young crop of RBs, LBs, DBs, along with some talent along the DL. Areas of need are OL (notoriously the most difficult position to recruit for), QB, and tho we have solid talent we could use more bodies along the DL. WRs have potential. It's not a total disaster by any means. We're young af....but we're not devoid of talent.

All G5 schools are going to have the depth issue. It's the nature of the beast. For that part, most schools have the same issue. Outside of the 'Bamas/ OSU/ etc of the world you don't typically get really really deep up and down the roster.



Overall, excellent analysis. Bolded, again emphasizes the disparity between the dozen or so elite programs and the rest of the P5. UC has proven the past dozen years or so to be highly competitive with mid-level P5 programs--while on a comparatively meager budget... even in the Big East era.

(09-06-2017 08:14 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:24 PM)Nobones Wrote:  I think there are 2 areas that have lacked in recruiting since Dantonio left. And one that has lacked when Kelly left. First the OL and DL have tailed off since Dantonio left for Michigan State. We have had a few great ones but we have never been able to get a great group of guys. The QB is what is the issue right now. Hayden has now got happy feet and his head maybe on a swivel which is not good. It will take a couple for recruiting class to fix the OL and DL.

Our offensive lines were actually pretty solid during the CBJ years. Tub's first group in 2013 (all inherited) were: Sam Longo, Eric Lefeld, Austen Bujnoch, Abdre Cureton, Tyreek Burwell, Parker Ehinger and youngsters Deyshawn Bond, Ryan Leahy and Justin Murray. That's pretty significant depth.

The issue is Tubs could not recruit OL-- a big factor was his inability to recruit in the Midwest, where most of OL have historically come from. Over the years UC has brought in a ton of skilled players from Florida and Georgia, but for whatever reason we never seem to get the offensive linemen from those area.

Thanks for the reminder.

(09-05-2017 04:44 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

CTT has left us crap from the standpoint of an investor in the program. It will take years to recover from where we are today.

Top it all off with a home schedule that screams waste of my money.

UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

I don't think this is true. UC season tickets average about $45 per ticket. You pay the same ticket price whether it's Miami (FL) or Miami (OH). Compare that with Michigan or Ohio State or UK and you will soon see that if you consider UC a minor league product, then you are only being asked to pay minor league prices. And recent on-the-field results from Houston, Navy, Memphis, USF and others suggest that you are paying much less, and seeing a better product, than you would for season tickets at places like Illinois, Rutgers, Northwestern, and yes, UK. You might also want to check on what O$U charges for its practice games vs. Kent State, Tulsa, BGSU and Wyoming.

(09-06-2017 02:31 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 04:44 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  We are now a team that can barely - barely - beat an FCS team.

CTT has left us crap from the standpoint of an investor in the program. It will take years to recover from where we are today.

Top it all off with a home schedule that screams waste of my money.

UC is asking me for major league money for a minor league product.

I don't think this is true. UC season tickets average about $45 per ticket. You pay the same ticket price whether it's Miami (FL) or Miami (OH). Compare that with Michigan or Ohio State or UK and you will soon see that if you consider UC a minor league product, then you are only being asked to pay minor league prices. And recent on-the-field results from Houston, Navy, Memphis, USF and others suggest that you are paying much less, and seeing a better product, than you would for season tickets at places like Illinois, Rutgers, Northwestern, and yes, UK. You might also want to check on what O$U charges for its practice games vs. Kent State, Tulsa, BGSU and Wyoming.

Club seats. $2500 per pop.