After noticing, per another poster, that 4 or 5 of our defensive starters are walk-ons, and how it appeared that our obliteration by WKU seemed to be mostly about a personnel dichotomy, I got curious.
How is our recruiting...really?
Certainly the FCS players remaining should have been recruited at a time when we were at the pinnacle of our success. They should be almost the best of the best.
Forget that, IMHO, many Jrs and some Sophs that were FBS recruits should be competing and winning those positions, how the hell do we have so many walkons?
After some research, I chose Rivals because many if not most on the inside consider it the most accurate.
ODU recruiting is not only piss poor with respect to G5 (we have yet to break the top 100, so I can only post our ranking within CUSA), our recruiting ranking continues to drop.
We were:
10th in CUSA in 2014
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2014/cusa
11th in 2015
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2015/cusa
11th/12th in 2016
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2016/cusa
and so far 13th and
last for 2017 (I know it's early)
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2017/cusa
If it is not "Xs and Os, but Jimmys and Joes" that predominantly determine the success of the program, then we are in trouble personnel wise through at least 2020.
IMHO, big trouble.
(10-25-2016 06:03 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote: [ -> ]After noticing, per another poster, that 4 or 5 of our defensive starters are walk-ons, and how it appeared that our obliteration by WKU seemed to be mostly about a personnel dichotomy, I got curious.
How is our recruiting...really?
Certainly the FCS players remaining should have been recruited at a time when we were at the pinnacle of our success. They should be almost the best of the best.
Forget that, IMHO, many Jrs and some Sophs that were FBS recruits should be competing and winning those positions, how the hell do we have so many walkons?
After some research, I chose Rivals because many if not most on the inside consider it the most accurate.
ODU recruiting is not only piss poor with respect to G5 (we have yet to break the top 100, so I can only post our ranking within CUSA), our recruiting ranking continues to drop.
We were:
10th in CUSA in 2014
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2014/cusa
11th in 2015
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2015/cusa
11th/12th in 2016
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2016/cusa
and so far 13th and last for 2017 (I know it's early)
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2017/cusa
If it is not "Xs and Os, but Jimmys and Joes" that predominantly determine the success of the program, then we are in trouble personnel wise through at least 2020.
IMHO, big trouble.
Thanks for confirming what I have been saying for years. We have not been recruiting at a FBS level or at a level to make us competitive in CUSA.
'78- I'm sure you know the number of recruits signed factors into the rating. One year with a large turnover in players will affect the next years recruiting rating simply by virtue of the number of recruits signed. I believe the past 2-3 years our number of recruits signed has been pretty low.
I have no idea how significant the impact is. Any way to figure it? If you really want to come up with a meaningful discussion, why not count #'s of 1,2,3, star recruits signed each year. I asked the question weeks ago about the walkons, wanting to know how many walkons start at comparable schools. I agree on the surface it looks like a high ratio, but then again I have nothing to compare it to, especially for schools in their infancy.
My guess is what we are seeing is a combination of youth, insufficient time to physically mature and some questionable coaching.
Going strictly by the eye test, it seems the team is physically bigger each year. Despite the ass whippin last week, and the NC State and APP games, I believe finishing middle of the pack, with 6-7 wins represents progress. Not quantum leap progress, but slow, steady progress. I am simply impatient for us to be farther along, and I really want to win a game we shouldn't.
We'll really know if BW has grown as a coach if we can go one season without some half assed trick play bomb.
(10-25-2016 06:37 PM)Old Dominion Wrote: [ -> ]'78- I'm sure you know the number of recruits signed factors into the rating. One year with a large turnover in players will affect the next years recruiting rating simply by virtue of the number of recruits signed. I believe the past 2-3 years our number of recruits signed has been pretty low.
I have no idea how significant the impact is. Any way to figure it? If you really want to come up with a meaningful discussion, why not count #'s of 1,2,3, star recruits signed each year. I asked the question weeks ago about the walkons, wanting to know how many walkons start at comparable schools. I agree on the surface it looks like a high ratio, but then again I have nothing to compare it to, especially for schools in their infancy.
My guess is what we are seeing is a combination of youth, insufficient time to physically mature and some questionable coaching.
Going strictly by the eye test, it seems the team is physically bigger each year. Despite the ass whippin last week, and the NC State and APP games, I believe finishing middle of the pack, with 6-7 wins represents progress. Not quantum leap progress, but slow, steady progress. I am simply impatient for us to be farther along, and I really want to win a game we shouldn't.
We'll really know if BW has grown as a coach if we can go one season without some half assed trick play bomb.
Well, Rivals changed it's calculation method in 2013. It is based only on a team's top 20 commits for a given season, so there should not be an influence from prior turnover.
https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-com-foo...gs-formula
One of the he problems with the star system is that it fails to address other unrated players, of which lower tier G5 programs have many.
As for impact, the commits are listed by Rivals. We had 30 commits in 2014, 19 in 2015, and 23 in 2016, so it is possible that having one less than the minimum in 2015 could have slightly skewed that season's rank, but it couldn't have been by much.
I agree it is not perfect, but from what I have read, it is presently the best predictor available
EDIT: It should be noted that Rivals had Shuler Bentley as only a Two Star.
https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/maple/129297
I don't care about stars, recruiting sites or class rankings, I care about results on the field.
The defense still isn't remotely good enough and we will be MUCH worse next year without a real QB to be found on the roster. (A true freshman isn't going to get it done).
We are in a lot of trouble next year, especially with the OOC schedule being much tougher.
Time to start taking a hard look in the mirror.
Well let's look inward a little bit. In what area do we have a built in advantage with recruiting against the rest of the G5 (and P5 for that matter) Conference affiliation? No. Stadium? No. Indoor practice facility? No. Coaching staff? No. Tradition? No. Aesthetics of campus and surrounding area? No. Former players in NFL? No. Superior fan support ? No
We are in big trouble for the time being.
(10-25-2016 08:37 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care about stars, recruiting sites or class rankings, I care about results on the field.
The defense still isn't remotely good enough and we will be MUCH worse next year without a real QB to be found on the roster. (A true freshman isn't going to get it done).
We are in a lot of trouble next year, especially with the OOC schedule being much tougher.
Time to start taking a hard look in the mirror.
QB Drayton Arnold will be a RS Freshman, not a T/FR, and he seems to have all the tools. I think he will surprise a lot of people. I am more concerned at WR. We lose FCS recruit Pascal, which leaves us with really only two experienced receivers in two star Duhart and a walk on, Travis Fulgham.
Everyone said Bentley was going to be a stud and look how that turned out.
When it comes to Arnold, I'll believe it when I see it.
As for the WR's, it's not either or, they are BOTH big concerns and things bobby needs to address.
(10-25-2016 11:55 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone said Bentley was going to be a stud and look how that turned out.
When it comes to Arnold, I'll believe it when I see it.
As for the WR's, it's not either or, they are BOTH big concerns and things bobby needs to address.
And that epitomizes the points made about hype by other posters.
Look at Bentley's ODU bio page,
http://www.odusports.com/ViewArticle.dbm...=209396376
It states
Quote:A 4-Star recruit by 247 Sports and 3-Star by Rivals
Well, the reality is that he was a 3 star by 247 (which is actually a composite)
http://247sports.com/player/shuler-bentley-20479
and a two star by Rivals.
https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/15129
Of the big three prospect ratings services, he was a 2 by Rivals, a 3 by ESPN, and 2 by Scout.
The expectations created for this young man were unrealistic and based on exaggeration, or worse. It didn't help us or that young man.
I am afraid that may be the case for this team as well. Our stated expectation last year was to compete for the division championship and go to a bowl. This year it is to go to a bowl and compete for the Conference championship.. We'll see.
I think it is always more prudent to under promise and over deliver, but maybe that is just me.
But it's very clear that our team motto is aim high. So under promising and over delivering...that's something you do in manufacturing and sales. So he'd be going against the aim high philosophy.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
I don't see it that way. Aim High is a very nebulous term that can mean different things to different people. Last year we were 5-7. Aim High for me means hopefully 7-5 this year. Next year the same motto could mean 9-3, if you look at it over the LONG HAUL as opposed to just one season, it can take on even more meanings. AIM HIGH as a philosophy could mean conference champs EVENTUALLY. Problem is we all want eventually to be here, now.
Expectations are tough to manage. He could have gone out and said at the beginning of the year "I just want to show improvement." Then we all would have gone "what a puss, why aren't you aiming high?!" But he said "we go out and expect to win every game and compete for a championship. that's our goal" So when we fall short he's a bad coach and the teams falling apart.
(10-25-2016 08:37 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care about stars, recruiting sites or class rankings, I care about results on the field.
The defense still isn't remotely good enough and we will be MUCH worse next year without a real QB to be found on the roster. (A true freshman isn't going to get it done).
We are in a lot of trouble next year, especially with the OOC schedule being much tougher.
Time to start taking a hard look in the mirror.
Our OOC schedule next year won't be materially different than this year and should result in the same OOC record as this year; 2-2. 2 top 25-35 teams and two bottom 25/FBS teams.
(10-25-2016 10:56 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2016 08:37 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care about stars, recruiting sites or class rankings, I care about results on the field.
The defense still isn't remotely good enough and we will be MUCH worse next year without a real QB to be found on the roster. (A true freshman isn't going to get it done).
We are in a lot of trouble next year, especially with the OOC schedule being much tougher.
Time to start taking a hard look in the mirror.
QB Drayton Arnold will be a RS Freshman, not a T/FR, and he seems to have all the tools. I think he will surprise a lot of people. I am more concerned at WR. We lose FCS recruit Pascal, which leaves us with really only two experienced receivers in two star Duhart and a walk on, Travis Fulgham.
Strong, Little, Patterson, Hayes, and Harper are all getting experience this year. McCluney and Ellison are good WR recruits.
Who cares about recruiting rankings and walk on status when we can see how they produce on the field?
I haven't had time to dig into the Rivals rankings, but no one with a straight face can say we had the 10th best recruiting class in CUSA in 2014. We had 16 3 star recruits. Only one other school had more than 9 3 star recruits. It seems odd that rivals doesn't even have all our recruits in their system.
The thing about CUSA is all of the teams are very similar in recruiting. The difference is typically sheer volume of recruits (UAB recently, us in 2014) when teams are attempting to grow the roster. There is an occasional 4 star that commits, but generally teams have 5-10 3 star recruits and filled in with 2 star and guys that the recruiting services don't pay a lot of attention too.
We have zero chance of ranking high in 2017 because we are only going to have roughly 15 scholarships to offer; possibly less depending on which walks on earn a scholly and how many guys leave.
(10-26-2016 10:04 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't had time to dig into the Rivals rankings, but no one with a straight face can say we had the 10th best recruiting class in CUSA in 2014. We had 16 3 star recruits. Only one other school had more than 9 3 star recruits. It seems odd that rivals doesn't even have all our recruits in their system.
The thing about CUSA is all of the teams are very similar in recruiting. The difference is typically sheer volume of recruits (UAB recently, us in 2014) when teams are attempting to grow the roster. There is an occasional 4 star that commits, but generally teams have 5-10 3 star recruits and filled in with 2 star and guys that the recruiting services don't pay a lot of attention too.
We have zero chance of ranking high in 2017 because we are only going to have roughly 15 scholarships to offer; possibly less depending on which walks on earn a scholly and how many guys leave.
Indeed, according to 247 (based on a composite star system), ODU had the #2 class in CUSA in 2014.
http://olddominion.247sports.com/Season/...ll/Commits
I will do a complete analysis as I have time, but a clue may be the 1st one I looked at, Daniel Appouh.
Appouh, he was a two star with Scout, but was not rated by Rivals or ESPN.
He apparently wasn't rated by enough services to make the 247 composite, so where the 3 star came from I am not sure.
As you pointed out with our Freshman class a month or so ago, there seems to be some errors with some 247 databases
I will look individually at each of those 16 as time permits.