Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
National Signing Day Thread ...
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,313
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 846
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #1
National Signing Day Thread ...
Yeah I know, the new December "early signing" day has become the real National Signing Day, but the official day still has some loose recruiting ends to tie up so ....

Did your school nab a surprise last-minute recruit, or did a kid that you thought was in the bag all along turn traitor and sign with your rival today?

E.g., I am sad to report that Gilber Edmond, a 3-star defensive end who had been committed to us, flipped to South Carolina today. Boo!

That does raise an interesting issue with Jordan Burch, the 5-star DE who is committed to South Carolina but hasn't signed. Does Edmond know something we don't? Is Burch going to flip from USC - East to someone else?
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 10:10 AM by quo vadis.)
02-05-2020 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,263
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #2
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
Last I checked, #1 recruit in Texas was still uncommitted. He was previously committed to Georgia, but I think they had second thoughts. He got held out of the state title game because he refused to quit looking at his phone.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 11:58 AM by bullet.)
02-05-2020 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,263
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #3
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
Will Muschamp's QB son originally committed to Colorado St. but instead decided to walk on at Georgia. Muschamp and Smart are friends.
02-05-2020 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCbball21 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,348
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 51
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
Cincinnati is absolutely crushing it on the recruiting trail. 5 additions today move them up to the #42 recruiting class according to 247 composite...when is a P5 conference going to realize how much potential this program has?

BTW they just passed MSU in recruiting rankings 05-stirthepot
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 01:05 PM by UCbball21.)
02-05-2020 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCbball21 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,348
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 51
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
Cincinnati just added the #27 player from Michigan...as a walk-on. Seriously 04-jawdrop
https://247sports.com/Player/Carson-Hinton-46049716/

Moves Cincy up to #40
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 01:18 PM by UCbball21.)
02-05-2020 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
spenser Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #6
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-05-2020 01:17 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Cincinnati just added the #27 player from Michigan...as a walk-on. Seriously 04-jawdrop
https://247sports.com/Player/Carson-Hinton-46049716/

Moves Cincy up to #40

And most importantly for our Bearcats, Fickell told MSU he has no interest in going there.
02-05-2020 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


stxrunner Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,496
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 143
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #7
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-05-2020 01:49 PM)spenser Wrote:  
(02-05-2020 01:17 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Cincinnati just added the #27 player from Michigan...as a walk-on. Seriously 04-jawdrop
https://247sports.com/Player/Carson-Hinton-46049716/

Moves Cincy up to #40

And most importantly for our Bearcats, Fickell told MSU he has no interest in going there.

That's not true. Still very much up in the air.

Still, that class is incredible. Shows the roadmap to success at UC in the current landscape.
02-05-2020 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,313
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 846
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #8
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-05-2020 01:49 PM)spenser Wrote:  
(02-05-2020 01:17 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Cincinnati just added the #27 player from Michigan...as a walk-on. Seriously 04-jawdrop
https://247sports.com/Player/Carson-Hinton-46049716/

Moves Cincy up to #40

And most importantly for our Bearcats, Fickell told MSU he has no interest in going there.

Cincy is 25 spots ahead of the next G5, Boise. Landing those 4* guys is impressive.
02-05-2020 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,913
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #9
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
Keeping themselves at the top of the pile for a XII/ACC invite.
02-06-2020 08:47 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,313
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 846
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #10
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 08:47 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Keeping themselves at the top of the pile for a XII/ACC invite.

Thing is, though, there are different ways to look at the rankings. Some rank by overall points assigned to recruits, others by average ranking.

I like the latter, because otherwise volume can overwhelm quality. E.g., using a total points method, if school A signs three 3* guys they will rank ahead of a school B that signs two 4* guys, because the total score will be 9 to 8. But to me, school B recruited better, they got better players (assuming the stars are correct), they just didn't need to sign three guys.

I mean, if you compare USF to ECU on the 247 rankings, ECU is way ahead, they are #67 while we are a woeful #101. But that's because ECU signed 8 more guys. Our average quality ranking, 83.13, is actually better than theirs, which is 82.28.

Of course, volume does matter as well. You can't field a football team with just five guys. So the best ranking would combine them.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 09:58 AM by quo vadis.)
02-06-2020 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Chappy Online
Resident Goonie
*

Posts: 17,229
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 661
I Root For: ECU
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #11
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-06-2020 08:47 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Keeping themselves at the top of the pile for a XII/ACC invite.

Thing is, though, there are different ways to look at the rankings. Some rank by overall points assigned to recruits, others by average ranking.

I like the latter, because otherwise volume can overwhelm quality. E.g., using a total points method, if school A signs three 3* guys they will rank ahead of a school B that signs two 4* guys, because the total score will be 9 to 8. But to me, school B recruited better, they got better players (assuming the stars are correct), they just didn't need to sign three guys.

I mean, if you compare USF to ECU on the 247 rankings, ECU is way ahead, they are #67 while we are a woeful #101. But that's because ECU signed 8 more guys. Our average quality ranking, 83.13, is actually better than theirs, which is 82.28.

Of course, volume does matter as well. You can't field a football team with just five guys. So the best ranking would combine them.

I've never been one to get excited about recruiting for a number of reasons, but one of the things I find amusing is that they give these average recruit rankings down to the hundredths. That's a high amount of detail for something that's just a guess anyway. It's like when they pull out the chains to measure whether the gain was 10 yards when the original spot and the final spot were both guesses anyway. Always been odd to me. I mean, if you drop the high (Cincy) and the low (Tulsa) - not including Navy because they are a different animal - the entire AAC is between 84-82... it's like a tie. But people will be like ECU finished 3rd or Tulane finished 2nd.
02-06-2020 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,313
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 846
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #12
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 11:10 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(02-06-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-06-2020 08:47 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Keeping themselves at the top of the pile for a XII/ACC invite.

Thing is, though, there are different ways to look at the rankings. Some rank by overall points assigned to recruits, others by average ranking.

I like the latter, because otherwise volume can overwhelm quality. E.g., using a total points method, if school A signs three 3* guys they will rank ahead of a school B that signs two 4* guys, because the total score will be 9 to 8. But to me, school B recruited better, they got better players (assuming the stars are correct), they just didn't need to sign three guys.

I mean, if you compare USF to ECU on the 247 rankings, ECU is way ahead, they are #67 while we are a woeful #101. But that's because ECU signed 8 more guys. Our average quality ranking, 83.13, is actually better than theirs, which is 82.28.

Of course, volume does matter as well. You can't field a football team with just five guys. So the best ranking would combine them.

I've never been one to get excited about recruiting for a number of reasons, but one of the things I find amusing is that they give these average recruit rankings down to the hundredths. That's a high amount of detail for something that's just a guess anyway. It's like when they pull out the chains to measure whether the gain was 10 yards when the original spot and the final spot were both guesses anyway. Always been odd to me. I mean, if you drop the high (Cincy) and the low (Tulsa) - not including Navy because they are a different animal - the entire AAC is between 84-82... it's like a tie. But people will be like ECU finished 3rd or Tulane finished 2nd.

I agree. The notion that there is a great big difference between an 83.27 and 81.94 is pretty far-fetched. Those seem like trivial amounts.
02-06-2020 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,743
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 702
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #13
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 12:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-06-2020 11:10 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(02-06-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-06-2020 08:47 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Keeping themselves at the top of the pile for a XII/ACC invite.

Thing is, though, there are different ways to look at the rankings. Some rank by overall points assigned to recruits, others by average ranking.

I like the latter, because otherwise volume can overwhelm quality. E.g., using a total points method, if school A signs three 3* guys they will rank ahead of a school B that signs two 4* guys, because the total score will be 9 to 8. But to me, school B recruited better, they got better players (assuming the stars are correct), they just didn't need to sign three guys.

I mean, if you compare USF to ECU on the 247 rankings, ECU is way ahead, they are #67 while we are a woeful #101. But that's because ECU signed 8 more guys. Our average quality ranking, 83.13, is actually better than theirs, which is 82.28.

Of course, volume does matter as well. You can't field a football team with just five guys. So the best ranking would combine them.

I've never been one to get excited about recruiting for a number of reasons, but one of the things I find amusing is that they give these average recruit rankings down to the hundredths. That's a high amount of detail for something that's just a guess anyway. It's like when they pull out the chains to measure whether the gain was 10 yards when the original spot and the final spot were both guesses anyway. Always been odd to me. I mean, if you drop the high (Cincy) and the low (Tulsa) - not including Navy because they are a different animal - the entire AAC is between 84-82... it's like a tie. But people will be like ECU finished 3rd or Tulane finished 2nd.

I agree. The notion that there is a great big difference between an 83.27 and 81.94 is pretty far-fetched. Those seem like trivial amounts.

True.
02-06-2020 12:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,263
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #14
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
https://www.bannersociety.com/2020/2/6/2...g-2020-map
Have no idea how they determined this(seems pretty arbitrary), but its interesting nonetheless. Shows who won recruiting by state. Generally, Georgia and Clemson are viewed as #1 and #2 nationally in no particular order. Map has Auburn and South Carolina as the top schools in Georgia and South Carolina. Clemson won Florida. Georgia won Nevada.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 12:58 PM by bullet.)
02-06-2020 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,143
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 650
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #15
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thing is, though, there are different ways to look at the rankings. Some rank by overall points assigned to recruits, others by average ranking.

I like the latter, because otherwise volume can overwhelm quality. E.g., using a total points method, if school A signs three 3* guys they will rank ahead of a school B that signs two 4* guys, because the total score will be 9 to 8. But to me, school B recruited better, they got better players (assuming the stars are correct), they just didn't need to sign three guys.

This writer coined a term he calls "Blue Chip Ratio", and argues that CFP title contending teams will have at least 50% of their recruits at a 4-star level or better, on a rolling 4-year basis. All of the 2019 playoff teams and 11 of the top 15 teams had at least a 50% ratio.

Whatever a team's percentage, and whether you look at percentage of 4 stars and up or 3 stars and up, it's a good metric because it evens out fluctuations in class size. Maybe a team signs 15 players one year and 25 the next, but over a 4 year period they're going to sign roughly the same number to get close to a full complement of 85.
02-06-2020 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,313
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 846
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #16
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-06-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thing is, though, there are different ways to look at the rankings. Some rank by overall points assigned to recruits, others by average ranking.

I like the latter, because otherwise volume can overwhelm quality. E.g., using a total points method, if school A signs three 3* guys they will rank ahead of a school B that signs two 4* guys, because the total score will be 9 to 8. But to me, school B recruited better, they got better players (assuming the stars are correct), they just didn't need to sign three guys.

This writer coined a term he calls "Blue Chip Ratio", and argues that CFP title contending teams will have at least 50% of their recruits at a 4-star level or better, on a rolling 4-year basis. All of the 2019 playoff teams and 11 of the top 15 teams had at least a 50% ratio.

Whatever a team's percentage, and whether you look at percentage of 4 stars and up or 3 stars and up, it's a good metric because it evens out fluctuations in class size. Maybe a team signs 15 players one year and 25 the next, but over a 4 year period they're going to sign roughly the same number to get close to a full complement of 85.

Thanks for the tip. 04-cheers

If you look at all the ratings, it seems to me that Alabama, Clemson, and Georgia are all very close for #1, with LSU just a smidge behind them at #4.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 01:52 PM by quo vadis.)
02-06-2020 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,313
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 846
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #17
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
The Jordan Burch (5* DL from South Carolina) saga continues, LOL:

Both around early signing day and yesterday at a big ceremony for Gamecock signees, he has seemed to indicate he was going to South Carolina. But he has to this moment not actually sent in his signed NLI. Some are speculating that his mom is refusing to sign because she wants him to go elsewhere, and apparently her signature is required:

https://247sports.com/college/lsu/Articl...143436132/
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 01:49 PM by quo vadis.)
02-06-2020 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,785
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #18
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
Illinois recruiting is ranked 88. 13 kids, nobody from Illinois.
I seem to ask this ? Every yr. How is this possible
There MAC schools ranked higher
02-06-2020 09:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 200
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #19
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Jordan Burch (5* DL from South Carolina) saga continues, LOL:

Both around early signing day and yesterday at a big ceremony for Gamecock signees, he has seemed to indicate he was going to South Carolina. But he has to this moment not actually sent in his signed NLI. Some are speculating that his mom is refusing to sign because she wants him to go elsewhere, and apparently her signature is required:

https://247sports.com/college/lsu/Articl...143436132/

I hear that he has now signed, which is kinda disappointing. Top recruits like that don't need to sign and IMO shouldn't. No need to give the school the ability to force you to lose a year if you change your mind when it isn't necessary to do so. Schools can and would provide a scholly for a top player without his signing an NLI.

Better yet, write your own contract with provisions that guarantee literally every single benefit that an athlete may receive within the rules and demand that they agree to your terms.

To get their attention, start with a clause stipulating that, if you meet the NCAA's minimum academic standards for eligibility, the school guarantees that it will either a) admit you or b) pay you $20M for wasting you time. :D
02-06-2020 10:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,023
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #20
RE: National Signing Day Thread ...
(02-06-2020 09:17 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Illinois recruiting is ranked 88. 13 kids, nobody from Illinois.
I seem to ask this ? Every yr. How is this possible
There MAC schools ranked higher

You go to a MAC school, you will probably play away and lose at some Big Ten schools, just like playing at Illinois. But you also have at least a shot of doing well in your conference schedule.

Unless the recruit is really thrilled at the thought of being on the BTN on Saturday in November instead of ESPN2 in midweek, it's easy to see how the better regarded MAC schools might be able to make a case.
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2020 02:13 AM by BruceMcF.)
02-07-2020 02:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.