How important are recruiting rankings?

[ketelmeister]

I believe good coaching should receive more credit than it sometimes does in how a college performs. Add to that the strength of schedule, and there is more that JUST recruit rankings. Have some of Iowa State's key losses of the past been coaching, or just our lack of players? Here's an interesting comparison with rising star South Florida:
Rivals Team Rankings (Quality of recruits)
I State S. Florida
2007 60 58
2006 63 59
2005 58 50
2004 42 43
2003 46 61
My point, these recruiting classes are VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL in terms of star rankings. Yet South Florida was top ten much of this year. (There are many winning teams that I could do the same comparison with as well)

 

[cybsball20]

South Florida may have BEEN in the top 10 but probably finished around 40-50?? Pretty close to their recruiting ranking...

 

[isuno1fan]

S. Florida benefits from a weak conference. They were a decent team, but no where close to a top 10.

Recruiting rankings don't guarantee success, but to say there is no correlation between very good teams and high recruiting rankings would be an incorrect statement.

 

[ketelmeister]

South Florida may have BEEN in the top 10 but probably finished around 40-50?? Pretty close to their recruiting ranking...

Actually, they are #21 BCS and #23 AP right now. They slipped but came back and are in a bowl game. I thought they had dropped out of site too, but still up there.

 

[bootcy]

The problem with recruiting ranking is that part of what determines the ranking is who offers and who someone commits to. DJ Grant was a 2 star receiver when we offered, however now that Texas and Oklahoma offered late and he committed to Texas, he is now a 4 star. If he committed to us early he would still be a 2 star and everyone would be ripping him.

 

[chadm]

South Florida may have BEEN in the top 10 but probably finished around 40-50?? Pretty close to their recruiting ranking...

This shows SF at 21st.

(21) South Florida (9-3, 4-3 Big East)
Oregon (8-4, 5-4 Pac-10)

 

[ketelmeister]

Actually, they are #21 BCS and #23 AP right now. They slipped but came back and are in a bowl game. I thought they had dropped out of site too, but still up there.

And I don't mean to discount top recruiting and top rankings. I wish we had all 5 stars, but just point out in middle of the pack coaching seems to play a role.

 

[Knownothing]

Just look at who is getting all the 5 and 4 star guys.

OU
Texas
Ohio State
Florida
Miami
USC

No where do those teams usually end up at the end of the year. You guessed it the BCS title race.

No where does S. Florida, ISU, Iowa, and the rest of us getting the under the radar 2 and 3 star recruits end up. You guessed it. Hoping to win 6 games and get invited to a bowl game. So YES stars do matter.

 

[mt85]

Anyone that thinks a small staff of underfunded, self appointed experts can accurately evaluate the thousands of football players across the nation needs to take a step back and think about the magnitude of such a task.

 

[BryceC]

I don't think the services can accurately measure the difference between the #30 recruiting class and the #70 recruiting class. Way too many unknowns in there.

Just about everybody agrees on the top 150 players. After that it's a crapshoot.

 

[CYVADER]

i think a bigger indicater is the rivals ranking assigned to each player. our highest rivals ranking player right now is david grant with a 5.6 rr and a 3 star rating. for a comparison, notre dame has the #1 ranked class currently and their highest rivals ranking player has a 6.1 rr with 5 stars. not a huge gap between 5.6 and 6.1. team rankings are done a little different. you get extra points if a commit is a rated position player or rated in the top 150 overall. the team rankings are all about points. so many for the number of stars, so many for their rivals ranking, so many for being rated at the position. that is why we are behind baylor by about 10 spots with twice as many recruits right now-one commit they have is a 4 star qb ranked #3 at the position that is giving them a ton of overall points. hopefully this isn't to long winded and makes a little sense.

 

[CYVADER]

you can also read more about it here
SicEmSports.com - DO NOT DELETE How we rank prospects
hope this all helps

 

[Wesley]

Obviously teams that have their 25-27 recruits have more points than teas that have 19 recruits. As we add 6 more recruits, we could move up the ladder.

That said, a 3-5 star qb is worth more than a 3-5 star wide receiver because the qb can make or break a team. Example - Notre Dame.

 

[CYVADER]

also, we are still in the running with 16 3 star players and 1 4 star according to rivals. of those players, about 12 are ranked at their postion, so to get some of those guys to round out the class would probably make a significant difference in our signing day ranking. honestly though, how much difference can there be between the 100th ranked safety and the 101 ranked safety? not much if any, but for the team rankings it would make a considerable difference.

 

[cyclonenum1]

These rankings mean virtually nothing. Just as with anything, the bell curve applies to football talent. Spotting the elite players is easy.

Identifying the players with potential to work in your system or that can develop further once on campus is the trick...the majority of players that are in the middle "hump" of the bell curve. I do agree that there is some self-fulfilling prophecy with these rankings...kids seem to be graded up when a powerhouse school recruits them.

When you watch the BCS National Championship next Monday remember that Jacob Hester was a 2-star recruit for LSU. He often jokes that if LSU would not have recruited him they would have had the number 1 recruiting class in the country that year!

 

[sdsmith4]

I think stars do matter to a certain extent but are stressed more than they should be. A lot of the five star and four star guys turn out to be nothing! It is really all about coaching, yes some guys are naturally more gifted than others and they are obvious stars, but others aren't and it takes more work to build them. I think that eventually to be at a good level we should be getting mostly 3 star athletes with 3 or 4 four star athletes added on. The problem that we have had is that the only four star guys we have gotten in the past were JUCOS and we need to see that changed. JUCOs ratings are highly inflated, just look at guys we have gotten that were four star JUCOS and tell me they were worthy of it.