(02-03-2021 11:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 05:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ND beat out LSU today for New Orleans running back Logan Diggs.

https://notredame.rivals.com/news/rb-log...e-over-lsu


That was the only news of the day for ND.

Got me looking at LSU. They didn't seem to have too many Louisiana kids (but they did have 5 of the top 6 are expected to get the 6th one). They had the #10 player in Maryland, #7 in Ohio, #5 in Michigan and #4 in Pennsylvania. That along with other players in Texas and the Southeast. They have the #4 class overall.

Alabama has 7 from Texas, 7 from Florida, 5 from Alabama, 2 from Mississippi, and one from each of Michigan (#1), Ohio (#8), Maryland (#4), Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi.

Georgia with the #3 class stuck closer to home with 11 from Georgia and all but two others from Georgia or neighboring states (AL, TN, NC, SC, FL). But they did pick up the #10 player from California and #8 from Maryland.

LSU has had some big at-home misses in recent years - Davonta Smith, the recent Heisman winner, is from a school about 30 miles from LSU, his high school team wears LSU colors yet he committed first to Georgia, then to Alabama. And Travis Etienne, among the 4-5 best college players of the past 5 years yet signed with Clemson, is from New Orleans.

Louisiana is to football talent what I don't know, Kuwait is to oil. Its small size means it can't match states like Texas and Florida and California for overall talent, but on like a per-square-foot basis, it might be at the top.

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Very solid recruiting in Ohio, well done, Bearcats!

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

Some might argue that some of those players transferring out of P5 programs were overrated coming out of high school. Awarding stars isn't an exact science. Of course, that works both ways. It could also explain why at #42, Cincinnati has the highest ranked G5 recruiting class. Maybe their recruits aren't given the star rating they deserve and would earn if Alabama or Ohio State were recruiting them.

Transfer portal has been hit or miss for UC. For every James Hudson who came in here from Michigan to anchor the LT spot we have gotten a Blue Smith who came from Ohio State who has not seen the field in two years. Honestly the best hit rate has come from guys who were not all that heralded out of high school and went FCS first (Dino Boyd-Rhode Island or Bryan Cook from Hampton) or to a lesser quality FBS program (Darrian Beavers- UConn). I think a couple of those guys had late growth spurts and there is probably something to be said about “punching your way up”.

(02-04-2021 12:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

Some might argue that some of those players transferring out of P5 programs were overrated coming out of high school. Awarding stars isn't an exact science. Of course, that works both ways. It could also explain why at #42, Cincinnati has the highest ranked G5 recruiting class. Maybe their recruits aren't given the star rating they deserve and would earn if Alabama or Ohio State were recruiting them.

Sure, guys get overrated. Another scenario is that a guy is a valid 4-star, but he shows up at Alabama or Tennessee or wherever and just gets beat out for a starting spot by another 4-star guy. Now buried on the depth chart, and knowing that new recruits will be coming next year, he can either bide his time and wait for an injury, or else - thanks to the transfer portal - move on to another school where he can start immediately. Like Memphis or SMU.

Also, I've never really gotten this notion that G5 recruits are 'under-rated'. First, what is a G5 recruit? Before he commits to Cincy, he will get offers from a number of places, so how do Rivals and ESPN and 247 tag him with a G5 stigma rating?

Also, what incentive do big P5 have to not recruit a guy, and thereby subject him to an alleged under-rating because he's only being recruited by G5? I don't get that.

Bottom line is, as you say, recruiting is far from an exact science. It's a pretty good science, which is why there is a strong positive correlation between team recruiting rankings and things like conference titles and national titles. But there is obviously room for variance. One of the biggest being that these kids are 17 and their bodies are still changing. That's how Khalil Mack, one of the best players in the NFL, ended up at Buffalo. When he was a HS senior, he had a low-G5 body. While he was at Buffalo, he grew three inches and added 30 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he had an Alabama/NFL body. That happens.

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

I would not have guessed 32 four-star players (all "new") for the AAC this upcoming season. That borders on outstanding. Good find.

(02-04-2021 04:24 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

I would not have guessed 32 four-star players (all "new") for the AAC this upcoming season. That borders on outstanding. Good find.

I've only seen a few G5 players transfer up. For example, Shai Werts transferred from Ga Southern to Louisville as a graduate transfer.

(02-04-2021 04:24 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

I would not have guessed 32 four-star players (all "new") for the AAC this upcoming season. That borders on outstanding. Good find.

As far as I can tell, only two four star players are 2021 recruits for the AAC (one each for SMU and UCF). The 32 number includes players recruited in earlier years and still on AAC rosters plus transfers in for 2021.

(02-04-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Cincinnati's recruiting:
9 from Ohio (including #18, 26, 38, 41, 49, and 50)
3 from Florida (#58, 137, 157)
#16 and #27 in Pennsylvania
#10 and #21 in Indiana
#30 and #36 in Illinois
#2 in West Virginia
#5 in Kentucky
#23 in Michigan
#181 in Texas
#1 in Australia


If you rearrange the borders to look who recruited in the "state" of Cincinnati:
top-10 recruits: Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa State, Kentucky all got 1. UC got 4 of the top-10.

Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

Some might argue that some of those players transferring out of P5 programs were overrated coming out of high school. Awarding stars isn't an exact science. Of course, that works both ways. It could also explain why at #42, Cincinnati has the highest ranked G5 recruiting class. Maybe their recruits aren't given the star rating they deserve and would earn if Alabama or Ohio State were recruiting them.

Sure, guys get overrated. Another scenario is that a guy is a valid 4-star, but he shows up at Alabama or Tennessee or wherever and just gets beat out for a starting spot by another 4-star guy. Now buried on the depth chart, and knowing that new recruits will be coming next year, he can either bide his time and wait for an injury, or else - thanks to the transfer portal - move on to another school where he can start immediately. Like Memphis or SMU.

Also, I've never really gotten this notion that G5 recruits are 'under-rated'. First, what is a G5 recruit? Before he commits to Cincy, he will get offers from a number of places, so how do Rivals and ESPN and 247 tag him with a G5 stigma rating?

Also, what incentive do big P5 have to not recruit a guy, and thereby subject him to an alleged under-rating because he's only being recruited by G5? I don't get that.

Bottom line is, as you say, recruiting is far from an exact science. It's a pretty good science, which is why there is a strong positive correlation between team recruiting rankings and things like conference titles and national titles. But there is obviously room for variance. One of the biggest being that these kids are 17 and their bodies are still changing. That's how Khalil Mack, one of the best players in the NFL, ended up at Buffalo. When he was a HS senior, he had a low-G5 body. While he was at Buffalo, he grew three inches and added 30 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he had an Alabama/NFL body. That happens.

Ratings reflect who is recruiting the player. With thousands of players, not everyone gets noticed by P5 programs.

(02-04-2021 05:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Great to see for UC. Thanks for posting, CBearcat.

I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

Some might argue that some of those players transferring out of P5 programs were overrated coming out of high school. Awarding stars isn't an exact science. Of course, that works both ways. It could also explain why at #42, Cincinnati has the highest ranked G5 recruiting class. Maybe their recruits aren't given the star rating they deserve and would earn if Alabama or Ohio State were recruiting them.

Sure, guys get overrated. Another scenario is that a guy is a valid 4-star, but he shows up at Alabama or Tennessee or wherever and just gets beat out for a starting spot by another 4-star guy. Now buried on the depth chart, and knowing that new recruits will be coming next year, he can either bide his time and wait for an injury, or else - thanks to the transfer portal - move on to another school where he can start immediately. Like Memphis or SMU.

Also, I've never really gotten this notion that G5 recruits are 'under-rated'. First, what is a G5 recruit? Before he commits to Cincy, he will get offers from a number of places, so how do Rivals and ESPN and 247 tag him with a G5 stigma rating?

Also, what incentive do big P5 have to not recruit a guy, and thereby subject him to an alleged under-rating because he's only being recruited by G5? I don't get that.

Bottom line is, as you say, recruiting is far from an exact science. It's a pretty good science, which is why there is a strong positive correlation between team recruiting rankings and things like conference titles and national titles. But there is obviously room for variance. One of the biggest being that these kids are 17 and their bodies are still changing. That's how Khalil Mack, one of the best players in the NFL, ended up at Buffalo. When he was a HS senior, he had a low-G5 body. While he was at Buffalo, he grew three inches and added 30 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he had an Alabama/NFL body. That happens.

Ratings reflect who is recruiting the player. With thousands of players, not everyone gets noticed by P5 programs.

Let's face it: Who has a more extensive network of human and technology to scout HS players, a Florida or an FAU?

So it's quite unlikely that an FAU is going find a real good player, a 4* guy or above, that Florida is unaware of. Then, not only does Florida have to miss them, Miami and FSU have to as well. All while FAU takes notice.

I just don't see that happening very often. When a Cincy or a USF signs a 3* player, I'm pretty sure that several P5 teams took a look at him too, and decided that .... he was a low 3* player and therefore not someone they wanted to target. Of course, they could be wrong about that, or else Cincy might do a good job of developing that player further, etc.

Obviously, basketball is a very different game than football, but Belmont men's hoops recruiting is an interesting case study. The Bruin coaches rarely get a three-star prospect and focus their recruiting on about five or six contiguous states (Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio). The coaches target overwhelmingly players (regardless of positions) who can dribble, pass and shoot. If they can't jump ... no big deal. It's all about true basketball skills and players who have a team-first mentality. And just about every season, Belmont will offer a team that can beat all but maybe the top 15 teams or so.

Not sure there is a football equivalent of this (maybe Army, Air Force and Navy). But the point is simple: At some programs, it's all about the system.

(02-04-2021 09:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Obviously, basketball is a very different game than football, but Belmont men's hoops recruiting is an interesting case study. The Bruin coaches rarely get a three-star prospect and focus their recruiting on about five or six contiguous states (Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio). The coaches target overwhelmingly players (regardless of positions) who can dribble, pass and shoot. If they can't jump ... no big deal. It's all about true basketball skills and players who have a team-first mentality. And just about every season, Belmont will offer a team that can beat all but maybe the top 15 teams or so.

Not sure there is a football equivalent of this (maybe Army, Air Force and Navy). But the point is simple: At some programs, it's all about the system.

I think late 00s to bout the mid 10s spread offenses kinda achieved this with the rise of Utah, TCU and Boise plus countless others. But now that the power schools are running spread, the margin has widened tremendously with no sense of closing anytime soon. Something new gotta be developed to close this gap.

(02-03-2021 11:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  Pretty tough year for Texas in state with all the rumors of Tom Hermann's firing all season. Top 34 players-Texas A&M 9, Alabama 5, OU 4, LSU 2, Baylor 2 and Texas was one of 12 schools with 1. Of course the one player was #3 and one of the 3 5 stars. Texas did better from 35 down, picking up 5 players from 35-45.

Looking at numbers in top 100 it doesn't look too bad for Texas schools. They had 50 of the top 100 vs. 39 last year. 18 went to schools in neighboring states vs. 17 last year (OU the most with 6). The difference is the number of the top 3rd who went elsewhere (although A&M did well). Texas schools got more of the bottom 2/3 of the top 100, with Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU and SMU doing pretty well. UH picked up a couple. SEC (other than A&M) didn't do much different in numbers than last year, but the quality was higher as Alabama made up for Georgia and Florida not picking up any this year. Only 2 went to the Big 10 vs. 7 last year. ACC picked up 4, same as last year. Pac 12 had 7 down from 10 last year.

Those numbers are based on 247.

Alabama these days is going anywhere they want to and selecting recruits. The challenge for Sark is to get to the point where UT recruits top Texas high school football players as well as Alabama does.

The Pac-12 had two teams in the top 8 (Oregon No.6 and USC No.8), the only conference besides the SEC with two or more in the top 8. The SEC had four schools in the top 8, another typical SEC year for football recruiting. It was also the first time since 2012 that the Pac-12 had to two top 10 teams. Having zero games on the Pac-12 Network this season probably helped.

The No. 3 ranked player in the nation has still not decided and is apparently waiting until April to make his decision. J.T. Tuimoloau, a defensive tackle out of Sammamish, Washington, a suburb of Seattle. He is down to five schools: Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, USC and Washington. Ohio State has already taken one 2021 five star recruit out of Washington. Oregon is saving a scholarship for Tuimoloau and they seem to be confident that they can land him. It will be interesting to see where he ends up.

(02-04-2021 10:55 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 09:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Obviously, basketball is a very different game than football, but Belmont men's hoops recruiting is an interesting case study. The Bruin coaches rarely get a three-star prospect and focus their recruiting on about five or six contiguous states (Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio). The coaches target overwhelmingly players (regardless of positions) who can dribble, pass and shoot. If they can't jump ... no big deal. It's all about true basketball skills and players who have a team-first mentality. And just about every season, Belmont will offer a team that can beat all but maybe the top 15 teams or so.

Not sure there is a football equivalent of this (maybe Army, Air Force and Navy). But the point is simple: At some programs, it's all about the system.

I think late 00s to bout the mid 10s spread offenses kinda achieved this with the rise of Utah, TCU and Boise plus countless others. But now that the power schools are running spread, the margin has widened tremendously with no sense of closing anytime soon. Something new gotta be developed to close this gap.

Good point. In football, it's harder to "recruit like Belmont in basketball" and be strong.

(02-04-2021 09:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 05:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I saw an article that showed that, counting transfers, the AAC will have about 32 four-star players on rosters this coming year.

Since the AAC typically gets about 4 four-star recruits a year overall, which would translate to about 15 or so each roster-year for the conference, that means the AAC is doubling that number via the transfer portal.

The TP has become a big pipeline from the P5 to the G5, or at least to the AAC, contrary to some fears that it would work the other way, with the P5 sucking up good players from the G5. Sure, the latter is happening, but the net flow of talent seems to be much more P5 to G5.

Some might argue that some of those players transferring out of P5 programs were overrated coming out of high school. Awarding stars isn't an exact science. Of course, that works both ways. It could also explain why at #42, Cincinnati has the highest ranked G5 recruiting class. Maybe their recruits aren't given the star rating they deserve and would earn if Alabama or Ohio State were recruiting them.

Sure, guys get overrated. Another scenario is that a guy is a valid 4-star, but he shows up at Alabama or Tennessee or wherever and just gets beat out for a starting spot by another 4-star guy. Now buried on the depth chart, and knowing that new recruits will be coming next year, he can either bide his time and wait for an injury, or else - thanks to the transfer portal - move on to another school where he can start immediately. Like Memphis or SMU.

Also, I've never really gotten this notion that G5 recruits are 'under-rated'. First, what is a G5 recruit? Before he commits to Cincy, he will get offers from a number of places, so how do Rivals and ESPN and 247 tag him with a G5 stigma rating?

Also, what incentive do big P5 have to not recruit a guy, and thereby subject him to an alleged under-rating because he's only being recruited by G5? I don't get that.

Bottom line is, as you say, recruiting is far from an exact science. It's a pretty good science, which is why there is a strong positive correlation between team recruiting rankings and things like conference titles and national titles. But there is obviously room for variance. One of the biggest being that these kids are 17 and their bodies are still changing. That's how Khalil Mack, one of the best players in the NFL, ended up at Buffalo. When he was a HS senior, he had a low-G5 body. While he was at Buffalo, he grew three inches and added 30 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he had an Alabama/NFL body. That happens.

Ratings reflect who is recruiting the player. With thousands of players, not everyone gets noticed by P5 programs.

Let's face it: Who has a more extensive network of human and technology to scout HS players, a Florida or an FAU?

So it's quite unlikely that an FAU is going find a real good player, a 4* guy or above, that Florida is unaware of. Then, not only does Florida have to miss them, Miami and FSU have to as well. All while FAU takes notice.

I just don't see that happening very often. When a Cincy or a USF signs a 3* player, I'm pretty sure that several P5 teams took a look at him too, and decided that .... he was a low 3* player and therefore not someone they wanted to target. Of course, they could be wrong about that, or else Cincy might do a good job of developing that player further, etc.

There are literally thousands of 3 star players. Whether one is #50 or #200 in Texas in Rivals or 247 is largely dependent on who is recruiting him. Everyone knows who the 5 stars are. Some 4 stars are there instead of a 3 simply because a University of Texas or USC is recruiting them. And there is little difference between the 3 stars.

(02-05-2021 03:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 09:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 05:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Some might argue that some of those players transferring out of P5 programs were overrated coming out of high school. Awarding stars isn't an exact science. Of course, that works both ways. It could also explain why at #42, Cincinnati has the highest ranked G5 recruiting class. Maybe their recruits aren't given the star rating they deserve and would earn if Alabama or Ohio State were recruiting them.

Sure, guys get overrated. Another scenario is that a guy is a valid 4-star, but he shows up at Alabama or Tennessee or wherever and just gets beat out for a starting spot by another 4-star guy. Now buried on the depth chart, and knowing that new recruits will be coming next year, he can either bide his time and wait for an injury, or else - thanks to the transfer portal - move on to another school where he can start immediately. Like Memphis or SMU.

Also, I've never really gotten this notion that G5 recruits are 'under-rated'. First, what is a G5 recruit? Before he commits to Cincy, he will get offers from a number of places, so how do Rivals and ESPN and 247 tag him with a G5 stigma rating?

Also, what incentive do big P5 have to not recruit a guy, and thereby subject him to an alleged under-rating because he's only being recruited by G5? I don't get that.

Bottom line is, as you say, recruiting is far from an exact science. It's a pretty good science, which is why there is a strong positive correlation between team recruiting rankings and things like conference titles and national titles. But there is obviously room for variance. One of the biggest being that these kids are 17 and their bodies are still changing. That's how Khalil Mack, one of the best players in the NFL, ended up at Buffalo. When he was a HS senior, he had a low-G5 body. While he was at Buffalo, he grew three inches and added 30 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he had an Alabama/NFL body. That happens.

Ratings reflect who is recruiting the player. With thousands of players, not everyone gets noticed by P5 programs.

Let's face it: Who has a more extensive network of human and technology to scout HS players, a Florida or an FAU?

So it's quite unlikely that an FAU is going find a real good player, a 4* guy or above, that Florida is unaware of. Then, not only does Florida have to miss them, Miami and FSU have to as well. All while FAU takes notice.

I just don't see that happening very often. When a Cincy or a USF signs a 3* player, I'm pretty sure that several P5 teams took a look at him too, and decided that .... he was a low 3* player and therefore not someone they wanted to target. Of course, they could be wrong about that, or else Cincy might do a good job of developing that player further, etc.

There are literally thousands of 3 star players. Whether one is #50 or #200 in Texas in Rivals or 247 is largely dependent on who is recruiting him. Everyone knows who the 5 stars are. Some 4 stars are there instead of a 3 simply because a University of Texas or USC is recruiting them. And there is little difference between the 3 stars.

It wasn't always that way. This is the equivalent of grade inflation in our schools. I can remember when there were three star players on the ESPN300. Now, the #2,453 ranked player by 247 Sports in the 2021 class is given three stars.

(02-05-2021 04:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 03:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 09:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 05:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sure, guys get overrated. Another scenario is that a guy is a valid 4-star, but he shows up at Alabama or Tennessee or wherever and just gets beat out for a starting spot by another 4-star guy. Now buried on the depth chart, and knowing that new recruits will be coming next year, he can either bide his time and wait for an injury, or else - thanks to the transfer portal - move on to another school where he can start immediately. Like Memphis or SMU.

Also, I've never really gotten this notion that G5 recruits are 'under-rated'. First, what is a G5 recruit? Before he commits to Cincy, he will get offers from a number of places, so how do Rivals and ESPN and 247 tag him with a G5 stigma rating?

Also, what incentive do big P5 have to not recruit a guy, and thereby subject him to an alleged under-rating because he's only being recruited by G5? I don't get that.

Bottom line is, as you say, recruiting is far from an exact science. It's a pretty good science, which is why there is a strong positive correlation between team recruiting rankings and things like conference titles and national titles. But there is obviously room for variance. One of the biggest being that these kids are 17 and their bodies are still changing. That's how Khalil Mack, one of the best players in the NFL, ended up at Buffalo. When he was a HS senior, he had a low-G5 body. While he was at Buffalo, he grew three inches and added 30 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he had an Alabama/NFL body. That happens.

Ratings reflect who is recruiting the player. With thousands of players, not everyone gets noticed by P5 programs.

Let's face it: Who has a more extensive network of human and technology to scout HS players, a Florida or an FAU?

So it's quite unlikely that an FAU is going find a real good player, a 4* guy or above, that Florida is unaware of. Then, not only does Florida have to miss them, Miami and FSU have to as well. All while FAU takes notice.

I just don't see that happening very often. When a Cincy or a USF signs a 3* player, I'm pretty sure that several P5 teams took a look at him too, and decided that .... he was a low 3* player and therefore not someone they wanted to target. Of course, they could be wrong about that, or else Cincy might do a good job of developing that player further, etc.

There are literally thousands of 3 star players. Whether one is #50 or #200 in Texas in Rivals or 247 is largely dependent on who is recruiting him. Everyone knows who the 5 stars are. Some 4 stars are there instead of a 3 simply because a University of Texas or USC is recruiting them. And there is little difference between the 3 stars.

It wasn't always that way. This is the equivalent of grade inflation in our schools. I can remember when there were three star players on the ESPN300. Now, the #2,453 ranked player by 247 Sports in the 2021 class is given three stars.

The system we have now is probably more accurate than how it was determined in past years.

(02-05-2021 03:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 09:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 05:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Some might argue that some of those players transferring out of P5 programs were overrated coming out of high school. Awarding stars isn't an exact science. Of course, that works both ways. It could also explain why at #42, Cincinnati has the highest ranked G5 recruiting class. Maybe their recruits aren't given the star rating they deserve and would earn if Alabama or Ohio State were recruiting them.

Sure, guys get overrated. Another scenario is that a guy is a valid 4-star, but he shows up at Alabama or Tennessee or wherever and just gets beat out for a starting spot by another 4-star guy. Now buried on the depth chart, and knowing that new recruits will be coming next year, he can either bide his time and wait for an injury, or else - thanks to the transfer portal - move on to another school where he can start immediately. Like Memphis or SMU.

Also, I've never really gotten this notion that G5 recruits are 'under-rated'. First, what is a G5 recruit? Before he commits to Cincy, he will get offers from a number of places, so how do Rivals and ESPN and 247 tag him with a G5 stigma rating?

Also, what incentive do big P5 have to not recruit a guy, and thereby subject him to an alleged under-rating because he's only being recruited by G5? I don't get that.

Bottom line is, as you say, recruiting is far from an exact science. It's a pretty good science, which is why there is a strong positive correlation between team recruiting rankings and things like conference titles and national titles. But there is obviously room for variance. One of the biggest being that these kids are 17 and their bodies are still changing. That's how Khalil Mack, one of the best players in the NFL, ended up at Buffalo. When he was a HS senior, he had a low-G5 body. While he was at Buffalo, he grew three inches and added 30 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he had an Alabama/NFL body. That happens.

Ratings reflect who is recruiting the player. With thousands of players, not everyone gets noticed by P5 programs.

Let's face it: Who has a more extensive network of human and technology to scout HS players, a Florida or an FAU?

So it's quite unlikely that an FAU is going find a real good player, a 4* guy or above, that Florida is unaware of. Then, not only does Florida have to miss them, Miami and FSU have to as well. All while FAU takes notice.

I just don't see that happening very often. When a Cincy or a USF signs a 3* player, I'm pretty sure that several P5 teams took a look at him too, and decided that .... he was a low 3* player and therefore not someone they wanted to target. Of course, they could be wrong about that, or else Cincy might do a good job of developing that player further, etc.

There are literally thousands of 3 star players. Whether one is #50 or #200 in Texas in Rivals or 247 is largely dependent on who is recruiting him. Everyone knows who the 5 stars are. Some 4 stars are there instead of a 3 simply because a University of Texas or USC is recruiting them. And there is little difference between the 3 stars.

Well, I saw an article last year that said there were about 1,300 three-star players, as judged by Rivals.

That puts you above 99.5% of all HS football players.