A-
We have 8 three stars out of 13. The quality is getting better. I'll take less players for better quality. Heard some people say this could be the best recruiting class in awhile. I hope we continue to get recruits! What does tigernation think? GTG
Need a couple 4*s for an A-...I know we have one boarder line, but that's it for the 4*s, right? I'd say a solid B
(12-15-2013 03:27 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote: [ -> ]Need a couple 4*s for an A-...I know we have one boarder line, but that's it for the 4*s, right? I'd say a solid B
In my average fan's opinion, "solid B" is good at this point. Then numbers were kind of slim 10 days ago.
(12-15-2013 03:27 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote: [ -> ]Need a couple 4*s for an A-...I know we have one boarder line, but that's it for the 4*s, right? I'd say a solid B
He's technically a 4 I guess because he his on 24/7 (or is it rivals?)
I think I'd give it a solid B as well.
We are still listed at the bottom of the American. It shows you what a difficulty job CJF has. We will still be young, immature, short on numbers and fighting an uphill battle next year.
I'll reserve my rating until it's over but I like what I see so far.
Why are we rating a class that isn't complete, much less been seen on the field?
Based on Rivals ratings, which you would probably need to use to compare to previous classes... And based on what little recruiting means anyway... I'd give this a C so far. Highest rated player is 5.6 on rivals out of 17, and there just one at that rating. However, if you go back and look at previous years, so many of our higher rated players never hit the field, or just don't pan out. I do think, however, that this staff may be better at finding potential that isn't rated so high, or finding it before it is rated.
As we all have seen, a kid commits to Memphis and his rating suffers.
The proof is on the field.
The one thing I will say about recruiting rankings is that Martin Ifedi was a two star prospect.
Are we really saying this is a B, maybe an A-? If this was basketball, it would be worse than an F-, maybe we should ratchet up our expectations a bit. Not to say the rest of the conference is doing all that great.
Cincinnati #47
South Florida #48
Temple #59
Houston #64
Tulane #67
UCF #77
SMU #83
MEMPHIS #85
East Carolina #89
Tulsa #89
UCONN #106
Navy #121
Right because football and basketball has the same recent success of course we should expect both teams to recruit at the same level... surely it isn't because our football team is rebuilding or anything.
(12-21-2013 11:33 AM)cmt Wrote: [ -> ]Are we really saying this is a B, maybe an A-? If this was basketball, it would be worse than an F-, maybe we should ratchet up our expectations a bit. Not to say the rest of the conference is doing all that great.
Cincinnati #47
South Florida #48
Temple #59
Houston #64
Tulane #67
UCF #77
SMU #83
MEMPHIS #85
East Carolina #89
Tulsa #89
UCONN #106
Navy #121
These ratings are scewed by the number of prospects committed to each school. You have to look at the average of the individual player ratings. Last I saw, our average player rating was in the top 2 or 3 in the conference.
(12-21-2013 12:21 PM)danny1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2013 11:33 AM)cmt Wrote: [ -> ]Are we really saying this is a B, maybe an A-? If this was basketball, it would be worse than an F-, maybe we should ratchet up our expectations a bit. Not to say the rest of the conference is doing all that great.
Cincinnati #47
South Florida #48
Temple #59
Houston #64
Tulane #67
UCF #77
SMU #83
MEMPHIS #85
East Carolina #89
Tulsa #89
UCONN #106
Navy #121
These ratings are scewed by the number of prospects committed to each school. You have to look at the average of the individual player ratings. Last I saw, our average player rating was in the top 2 or 3 in the conference.
This.
(12-18-2013 03:32 PM)Rob Wrote: [ -> ]Why are we rating a class that isn't complete, much less been seen on the field?
Because there's nothing else to do Tiger football wise right now...
(12-18-2013 03:32 PM)Rob Wrote: [ -> ]Why are we rating a class that isn't complete, much less been seen on the field?
I enjoy the posts. Everyone understands it isn't complete but it provides a snapshot of where we are today in terms of recruiting. If you wait until later to evaluate once on the field then that review will likely never occur. Talking recruiting gives fans something to talk about in the off-season and gauge recruiting efforts to previous years. Anything that keeps football relevant and fans excited in the off-season is good by me.
* I do wish folks would consider putting there ratings in context. For instance, are posters giving the rating based on the previous years effort. Obviously, we are not recruiting at a top 20 level.
If we were to break it down by position. Then i will give the LB recruits an A-. And maybe a B for the DT position(one really good player with lots of potential). The rest about same as usual.
South Florida 20 0 1 15 2.85 1245
Cincinnati 22 0 0 14 2.64 1200
Temple 21 0 1 6 2.38 1005
Houston 25 0 0 3 2.12 900
UCF 13 0 0 7 2.54 720
Southern Meth 17 0 0 1 2.06 600
Memphis 17 0 0 4 2.33 585
Connecticut 10 0 0 3 2.3 345
(12-21-2013 10:10 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote: [ -> ]If we were to break it down by position. Then i will give the LB recruits an A-. And maybe a B for the DT position(one really good player with lots of potential). The rest about same as usual.
South Florida 20 0 1 15 2.85 1245
Cincinnati 22 0 0 14 2.64 1200
Temple 21 0 1 6 2.38 1005
Houston 25 0 0 3 2.12 900
UCF 13 0 0 7 2.54 720
Southern Meth 17 0 0 1 2.06 600
Memphis 17 0 0 4 2.33 585
Connecticut 10 0 0 3 2.3 345
So, as far as quality, this puts us 4th in conference, right?
(12-23-2013 10:47 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2013 10:10 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote: [ -> ]If we were to break it down by position. Then i will give the LB recruits an A-. And maybe a B for the DT position(one really good player with lots of potential). The rest about same as usual.
South Florida 20 0 1 15 2.85 1245
Cincinnati 22 0 0 14 2.64 1200
Temple 21 0 1 6 2.38 1005
Houston 25 0 0 3 2.12 900
UCF 13 0 0 7 2.54 720
Southern Meth 17 0 0 1 2.06 600
Memphis 17 0 0 4 2.33 585
Connecticut 10 0 0 3 2.3 345
So, as far as quality, this puts us 4th in conference, right?
Right.
Here is the Rivals status of 2 recruiting classes; SMU and Memphis. From a common sense standpoint, tell me how SMU's is better than ours. Check out how many FBS scholarship offers the SMU guys had. Posey had about as many FBS offers as all of the SMU recruits combined.
http://smu.rivals.com/default.asp?type=2
http://memphis.rivals.com/default.asp?type=2
(12-24-2013 09:52 AM)oldtiger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-23-2013 10:47 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2013 10:10 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote: [ -> ]If we were to break it down by position. Then i will give the LB recruits an A-. And maybe a B for the DT position(one really good player with lots of potential). The rest about same as usual.
South Florida 20 0 1 15 2.85 1245
Cincinnati 22 0 0 14 2.64 1200
Temple 21 0 1 6 2.38 1005
Houston 25 0 0 3 2.12 900
UCF 13 0 0 7 2.54 720
Southern Meth 17 0 0 1 2.06 600
Memphis 17 0 0 4 2.33 585
Connecticut 10 0 0 3 2.3 345
So, as far as quality, this puts us 4th in conference, right?
Right.
Here is the Rivals status of 2 recruiting classes; SMU and Memphis. From a common sense standpoint, tell me how SMU's is better than ours. Check out how many FBS scholarship offers the SMU guys had. Posey had about as many FBS offers as all of the SMU recruits combined.
http://smu.rivals.com/default.asp?type=2
http://memphis.rivals.com/default.asp?type=2
We have a Rivals board?