(02-06-2019 11:24 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:49 PM)PSCNiner Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:15 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:04 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  Congrats on your recruiting classes. 10 schools 100th or better...Impressive.

The bottom CUSA schools need a lot of help. No amount of coaching will help them keep up the rest of CUSA. They should change to the tripple option if they can’t recruit base level G5 talent.

Edit: I take what I said back, even the bottom of CUSA filled out pretty nicely (with the exception of Charlotte).

Tbe "bottom" cusa schools. Charlotte was nowhere near the bottom last year and will likely be even better next year. These rankings are a joke. You might want to look at what Charlotte needed and what they got, paying particular attention to transfers which aren't included in these rankings.

Transfers can be important, but the facts are Charlotte was ranked 14, 11, 11, and 10 in the past 4 years.

You mean during our FIRST 4 YEARS of existence?

subaru quarter mile

subaru quarter mile

espn lines up a lot more with Rivals.

If you read history about 247 it was started by a few former rivals members

(02-07-2019 10:01 AM)PSCNiner Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:24 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:49 PM)PSCNiner Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:15 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:04 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  Congrats on your recruiting classes. 10 schools 100th or better...Impressive.

The bottom CUSA schools need a lot of help. No amount of coaching will help them keep up the rest of CUSA. They should change to the tripple option if they can’t recruit base level G5 talent.

Edit: I take what I said back, even the bottom of CUSA filled out pretty nicely (with the exception of Charlotte).

Tbe "bottom" cusa schools. Charlotte was nowhere near the bottom last year and will likely be even better next year. These rankings are a joke. You might want to look at what Charlotte needed and what they got, paying particular attention to transfers which aren't included in these rankings.

Transfers can be important, but the facts are Charlotte was ranked 14, 11, 11, and 10 in the past 4 years.

You mean during our FIRST 4 YEARS of existence?

Fair enough. I have no problems with Charlotte I just think we should all be out recruiting the Sunbelt.

Too much is made of recruiting classes and which sites are more accurate in their evaluations. What everything really comes down to is what's done with the talent on the field. Arguably, UTSA's best teams have been with talent deemed mediocre on these recruiting sites, and our teams have gotten progressively worse ever since the guy called the nation's top recruiter took over our program.

This coming season will come down to whether our new OC can turn our offense around, not whether we have another highly regarded recruiting class under Wilson. There truly isn't much of a difference between most of these 2 and 3-star recruits that G5 programs attract. How high their ceiling is usually comes down to what their coaches can get out of them.

(02-07-2019 10:36 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  Too much is made of recruiting classes and which sites are more accurate in their evaluations. What everything really comes down to is what's done with the talent on the field. Arguably, UTSA's best teams have been with talent deemed mediocre on these recruiting sites, and our teams have gotten progressively worse ever since the guy called the nation's top recruiter took over our program.

This coming season will come down to whether our new OC can turn our offense around, not whether we have another highly regarded recruiting class under Wilson. There truly isn't much of a difference between most of these 2 and 3-star recruits that G5 programs attract. How high their ceiling is usually comes down to what their coaches can get out of them.

Yup

so how truly accurate are these rankings as i thought schools were capped at 25 signings a year. Several schools have over the 25 amount (27, 29, 32, 33 commitments) so which 5-7 get left out and does rankings go back and reflect it then?

(02-07-2019 11:19 AM)usm99 Wrote:  so how truly accurate are these rankings as i thought schools were capped at 25 signings a year. Several schools have over the 25 amount (27, 29, 32, 33 commitments) so which 5-7 get left out and does rankings go back and reflect it then?

There is an 85 player limit for scholarships. If you have players leaving for the draft, transferring, etc. you open up more scholarships. Also, if you have signed less students in previous years you may have an excess for the current year.

These rankings have so many flaws. I majored is statistics and work with them daily. They use a composite ranking based on a proprietary algorithm used by all recruiting services. So 247 uses Rivals Ranking to John Doe’s rankings. Rivals employed close to 200 people and started in 1998, 247 was created in late 2010. With 50 employees. I’m not going to go on and n but Rivals has sooooo much more tech and contacts to make a better assumption.

ANYONE who actually thinks anything below 5 star recruits and a handful of 4 stars actually means something you’re a fool. It’s all about player development & coaching below that. The key is finding the talent to fit the coaching scheme. The whole rankings of players is fluff. There is a reason the 5 stars fill out Alabama, Clemson, etc AMS thsoe exact same teams are near the top every year and the rest are just switching places every year. Every now and then a team will have undefeated runs but that’s pure luck of the draw. This is exactly why I’m always interested to see who teams get but putting stock into rankings is hilarious and only for fans to babble about when they aren’t drooling over pictures of their favorite 18 year olds.

Bunch of creepers.

(02-07-2019 12:06 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  ANYONE who actually thinks anything below 5 star recruits and a handful of 4 stars actually means something you’re a fool. It’s all about player development & coaching below that. The key is finding the talent to fit the coaching scheme. The whole rankings of players is fluff. There is a reason the 5 stars fill out Alabama, Clemson, etc AMS thsoe exact same teams are near the top every year and the rest are just switching places every year. Every now and then a team will have undefeated runs but that’s pure luck of the draw. This is exactly why I’m always interested to see who teams get but putting stock into rankings is hilarious and only for fans to babble about when they aren’t drooling over pictures of their favorite 18 year olds.

Bunch of creepers.

This is my favorite Marshall bed time story. I’ve heard this one quite a few times before.

Coach matters, recruiting also matters. Yes there are tons of other variables involved as well, but absolutely no one is buying the myth that only coaching and development matter.

We’ve had the worst recruiting classes in the nation for the last ten years or so and coincidentally we have also been one of the worst teams in the nation. I don’t know if the two are related but I imagine they are.

(02-07-2019 11:54 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  These rankings have so many flaws. I majored is statistics and work with them daily. They use a composite ranking based on a proprietary algorithm used by all recruiting services. So 247 uses Rivals Ranking to John Doe’s rankings. Rivals employed close to 200 people and started in 1998, 247 was created in late 2010. With 50 employees. I’m not going to go on and n but Rivals has sooooo much more tech and contacts to make a better assumption.

The problem with rivals is not the ratings. The problem is the frequency of updates for most schools, making it pointless to compare. 247 is taking rivals ratings into consideration, which is great, but they are also up to date on 90% of the commitments/decommitments. Only a select few schools are frequently updated on rivals. The ratings are good but the recruit tracking is terrible. Rivals added 70% of class after NSD, 247 had to add maybe 15%.

It won’t matter until the final day or weeks. So much flipping, so many schools not listed, scholarships open up, etc. Too many flaws in 247 & Rivals. There’s no way that a team with same players on rivals and 247 should have 29 teams in between

(02-07-2019 11:54 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  These rankings have so many flaws. I majored is statistics and work with them daily. They use a composite ranking based on a proprietary algorithm used by all recruiting services. So 247 uses Rivals Ranking to John Doe’s rankings. Rivals employed close to 200 people and started in 1998, 247 was created in late 2010. With 50 employees. I’m not going to go on and n but Rivals has sooooo much more tech and contacts to make a better assumption.

What you described is why many prefer 247. 247 basically normalizes the various rankings, creating a more accurate result. Improved R2 value with more data input.

(02-07-2019 12:33 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 11:54 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  These rankings have so many flaws. I majored is statistics and work with them daily. They use a composite ranking based on a proprietary algorithm used by all recruiting services. So 247 uses Rivals Ranking to John Doe’s rankings. Rivals employed close to 200 people and started in 1998, 247 was created in late 2010. With 50 employees. I’m not going to go on and n but Rivals has sooooo much more tech and contacts to make a better assumption.

The problem with rivals is not the ratings. The problem is the frequency of updates for most schools, making it pointless to compare. 247 is taking rivals ratings into consideration, which is great, but they are also up to date on 90% of the commitments/decommitments. Only a select few schools are frequently updated on rivals. The ratings are good but the recruit tracking is terrible. Rivals added 70% of class after NSD, 247 had to add maybe 15%.

Exactly. A player can decommit and 247 will show this in a matter of few days while Rivals sometimes never adjusts.

(02-07-2019 06:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  We picked up our 3rd graduate transfer - this time a former 4-star recruit (from Charlotte) who has played at Stanford the past 3 years. Brian Chaffin is a center, so that's 2 graduate transfer OL we've picked up (plus an all-Ivy League QB out of Harvard). Most of the guys we signed yesterday though were preferred walk-ons. Rice's changing its tuition guidelines has probably made a massive difference in its ability to get PWO's. It's about time the school's wealth has made a difference in athletics in a positive manner.

BTW another reason the recruiting rankings are a waste of time is they don't even consider transfers for the most part. Two of the three we have coming in were all-conference selections in 2018 for major FCS conferences.

I think we signed 14 kids yesterday - only 4 of them were scholarship. They still have 4 or 5 scholarship openings and most of those are being held for other graduate transfer possibilities (we're still hoping to get a Stanford FB, and another one I hope we get is a DL from Columbia).

https://riceowls.com/news/2019/2/6/owls-...class.aspx

+1. There's a lot of immediate help coming in. The graduate transfers should help. Those two offensive linemen and the quarterback from Harvard will play right away.

I read in the Houston Chronicle this morning that we'll sign a total of 31 players by the time it's all over, including the 4 preferred walk-ons. We have our eye on three more grad transfers. Last year we had 49 players for Spring practice, this year a full 105.

(02-07-2019 10:23 AM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 10:01 AM)PSCNiner Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:24 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:49 PM)PSCNiner Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:15 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  The bottom CUSA schools need a lot of help. No amount of coaching will help them keep up the rest of CUSA. They should change to the tripple option if they can’t recruit base level G5 talent.

Edit: I take what I said back, even the bottom of CUSA filled out pretty nicely (with the exception of Charlotte).

Tbe "bottom" cusa schools. Charlotte was nowhere near the bottom last year and will likely be even better next year. These rankings are a joke. You might want to look at what Charlotte needed and what they got, paying particular attention to transfers which aren't included in these rankings.

Transfers can be important, but the facts are Charlotte was ranked 14, 11, 11, and 10 in the past 4 years.

You mean during our FIRST 4 YEARS of existence?

Fair enough. I have no problems with Charlotte I just think we should all be out recruiting the Sunbelt.

Perhaps, but the four graduate transfers we got will all be starting in places we were weak last season.

Three stars are nice, but they didn’t get you to a bowl games last season and an average kicker would have.