Larry Williams
The ACC has signed 19 Rivals 5-star prospects in the past three recruiting classes. All 19 have gone to Florida State (10) and Clemson (9).
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116
On the left hand side below, I compiled the cumulative Top 20 recruiting schools from 2010-13 by awarding points for where their class finished each year in Scout.com’s rankings. On the right hand side, I compiled the cumulative Top 20 programs in the AP poll from 2012-15 (when those classes began comprising the majority of teams’ rosters.) Teams had to appear in at least the Top 25 to qualify, with 100 points the maximum possible score.
Notice how many names appear in both.
| Scout.com rankings (2010-13) | AP poll finishes (2012-15) |
| 1. Alabama (87) | 1. Alabama (91) |
| 2. Auburn (76) | 2. Ohio State (84) |
| 3. Ohio State (75) | 3. Florida State (74) |
| 4. Texas (73) | 4. Oregon (72) |
| 5. LSU (73) | 5. Clemson (68) |
| 6. Florida State (68) | 6. Michigan State (64) |
| 7. Florida (65) | 7. Stanford (57) |
| 8. USC (64) | 8. Oklahoma (52) |
| 9. Oklahoma (62) | 9. Baylor (45) |
| 10. Michigan (61) | 10. Notre Dame (43) |
| 11. Georgia (58) | 11. TCU (42) |
| 12. Notre Dame (56) | 12. South Carolina (40) |
| 13. UCLA (48) | 13. Georgia (38) |
| 14. Oregon (46) | 14. LSU (34) |
| 15. Clemson (39) | 15. Missouri (33) |
| 16. Miami (35) | 16. Texas A&M (29) |
| 17. Ole Miss (33) | 17. Auburn (28) |
| 18. Tennessee (30) | 18. Louisville (26) |
| 19. South Carolina (30) | 19. UCLA (25) |
| 20. Texas A&M (26) | 20. Ole Miss (25) |
There are outliers on both ends — recent powers Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor have far exceeded expectations based on their recruiting rankings, while Texas, Florida and USC have woefully underachieved.
But if we assume the correlations here are generally true from year-to-year, consider these odds.
Power 5 teams (of which there are 65) that consistently recruit Top 20 classes have a 60 percent chance of becoming a Top 20 program and a 35 percent chance of regularly inhabiting the Top 10.
By contrast, Power 5 teams that finish outside the Top 20 in recruiting have a lower than 18 percent chance of fielding Top 20 teams and just a 6.7 percent chance of reaching the Top 10.
Still think those recruiting rankings are meaningless?
In 2014, Matt Hinton took an even deeper dive into the correlation between team recruiting rankings and on-field performance.
Myth No. 2: Star rankings don’t matter
Last year at this time, a few sites jumped all over the fact that no starters in that week’s Patriots-Seahawks Super Bowl had a five-star ranking coming out of high school as proof that those designations are worthless. It was statistically disingenuous. Given that the recruiting sites only award five-stars to just over 30 recruits in a given year, it’s hardly outrageous that two of the 32 NFL starting lineups did not include a member of that relatively tiny talent pool.
A more analytical method to determining whether star-rankings carry weight is to look at the ratios by which they produced NFL talent.
Using 247Sports’ composite rankings — which combine all the major recruiting sites to derive a consensus evaluation of the nation’s recruits — here’s how the 32 members of the 2015 NFL first round broke down by star-rankings.
Five stars: eight (25 percent)
Four stars: seven (21.9 percent)
Three stars: 15 (47.8 percent)
Two stars or lower: two (6.2 percent)
A ha! More than half of last year’s first rounders were no better than three-star recruits. Definitive proof that those stars don’t matter, right?
Well … not if you consider the broader dispersal of those stars. Compare those percentages above to the percentage of five-stars among all 2011 recruits (the class that produced the majority of those draft picks.)
Five stars: 26 (0.7 percent)
Four stars: 336 (8.9 percent)
Three stars: 971 (25.7 percent)
Two stars or lower: 2,441 (64.7 percent)
So despite comprising less than 1 percent of all recruits, five-stars accounted for a quarter of 2015 first-rounders. Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of all recruits are designated as being three stars or less, yet their representation in the first round is nearly half that.
Put it this way: About one in four five-star recruits like No. 1 pick Jameis Winston goes on to become a first-rounder, but only about one in 64 three-star recruits like No. 2 Marcus Mariota does. Any generalizations about star-ratings that use NFL rosters as justification are giving disproportionate weight to the outliers.
Last year, SB Nation’s Bud Elliott examined why some two-star recruits still wind up becoming NFL stars.
Myth No. 3: ‘Half these guys won’t end up doing anything’
Once upon a time — back in the days when recruiting services consisted of quarterly newsletters and 1-900 numbers — that statement may have held true. Half the guys they anointed as blue-chippers went on to have successful careers, and half were busts. Give or take.
Today, however, evaluators have the benefit of attending national and regional combines throughout players’ high-school careers; high-definition video of their games; and, well, the Internet. As such, their hit rates are pretty darn good.
Again, using the 247 composite rankings, let’s review the college careers of the Top 50 prospects in the class of 2012. Given their lofty status, it’s reasonable to expect these “best of the best” recruits to develop into major contributors as soon as their freshman seasons.
For the most part, that’s exactly what happened.
Highlighted by stars like Florida State’s Winston; Washington LB Shaq Thompson; USC DT Leonard Williams; and Alabama’s Amari Cooper, T.J. Yeldon and Reggie Ragland, 38 of the 50 started multiple seasons, 28 earned all-conference honors and 14 made All-American.
Conversely, only seven of the 50 could be considered a “bust,” having never started a full season.
In 2013, Hinton, then with CBS Sports, examined the rate at which each star-level of recruits develop into All-Americans.
So even if you can’t stand all the pomp and the fuss of Signing Day, you probably should pay attention Wednesday to the college decisions of five-star prospects like Rashan Gary, Derrick Brown and Demetris Robertson. Statistically speaking, they are far more likely than not to become future standouts, and the teams that land the most are far more likely to win championships than not.
Sorry to be a party-pooper, all you Signing Day party poopers.
http://247sports.com/Article/National-Signing-Day-Why-recruiting-unquestionably-matters-for-c-50905753
You don't win championships without five-star prospects and Top 10 classes. Data, and plenty of it, backs that up.
Stars are assigned to recruits based on potential, and when they commit it gives fans a window into their team’s future. It’s a chaotic and intuitive system, but it’s also one that directly correlates to championships.
Data, and plenty of it, backs that up.
The National Title Game
The recruiting industry’s rankings got its start in 2002 with Rivals and Scout. ESPN first introduced its rankings in 2006, while 247Sports’ first full rankings debuted in 2011. 247Sports also designed the 247Sports Composite, which combines the four major services into one ranking to present the best evaluation possible for individual prospects/team rankings.Starting with that 2002 jumping off point, 247Sports examined the last 15 years of national championship games and their participants. Through fifteen years and 13 different contestants, not a single team reached the title game without a five-star player on its roster.
From when Ohio State and Miami squared off in 2002 to this year’s clash between Alabama and Clemson, five-star players have been a part of the proceedings at the national title game.
They’re not always especially prevalent (Oregon had just three in its appearances in 2010, 2014), but they’re still a critical piece of a team’s success. Five-star prospects aren’t just potentially program-changing figures; they’re representative of team’s overall recruiting efforts.
"If you’re a program of landing a five-star you’re a program capable of landing difference makers across the board," said 247Sports Director of Recruiting Steve Wiltfong.
Of the 30 different rosters to compete in those national title games, 28 of them were formed with at least one Top 10 class (within the previous four seasons) as a foundation. Only Oregon (2010, 2014) reached a title game without a Top 10 class as its backbone.
Even the Ducks, however, were spurred on by fringe Top 10 classes. From 2010 to 2012 Oregon finished 13th, 12th and 13th respectively in the 247Sports Composite Team Recruiting Rankings.
Different systems and styles spanned this 15-year period, but one thing stayed the same – a strong talent base in recruiting.
"Recruiting is, by far, the most important thing to a college football program, because college football is a Jims and Joes game," Wiltfong said. "If you are a staff that’s outstanding at evaluating and getting guys that fit your scheme and who will be hungry to develop ... you’re going to compete year in and year out.”
The Year-End Top 10
It’s not just the national championship participants whose on-field triumphs correlate strongly with recruiting success. The Top 10 of the final Associated Press poll each season shows a critical association between recruiting and wins. (Note: We used the AP Poll as an overall representative since our data spans both the BCS and College Football Playoff eras).247Sports, with the origin of our own rankings in mind, traced the Top 10 of the final AP Poll to 2011 to see how many of those teams featured at least one five-star player and a Top 10 class.
The results, much like those of the national title contenders, showed the importance of recruiting.
This past season, all but two of the teams (Washington, Wisconsin) in the year-end Top 10 had recruited a five-star prospect in its last four classes. Of that 10-team group, Washington, Oklahoma, Penn State and Wisconsin failed to produce a Top 10 class within the last four years.
Looking at the other five years, a total of just 10 teams didn’t have a five-star prospect on its roster: Three in 2015 (TCU, Houston, Iowa), two in 2014 (TCU and Georgia Tech), one in 2013 (Central Florida), none in 2012 and four in 2011 (Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, Boise State and Stanford).
Of the 60 Top 10 finishers we examined, only 20 percent of teams managed to crack the end-of-season Top 10 without a five-star prospect. But even those 12 rosters had plenty of talent. All but Boise State in 2011 and Central Florida in 2013 featured multiple prospects rated as a four-star by the 247Sports Composite.
Some teams (Wisconsin and TCU) had their success with less perceived talent than others, but they were still built with at least six four-star prospects during the years they finished in the Top 10.
In terms of a Top 10 recruiting class within the last four years, 52 percent of teams that ended in the Top 10 of the final AP poll from 2011-16 featured at least one such haul. In every year but 2011, at least five teams in the final Top 10 met that recruiting criteria – you’ll remember 2011 as the season Alabama and LSU played for the national championship from the same conference.
Teams with at least one Top 10 class to their credit made up 57 percent of the teams ranked in the final Top 5 from 2011-16.
Sustained Success
At this point, it’s important to acknowledge strong recruiting does not guarantee on-field results and that other teams have bucked the elite recruiting trend with sustained success.Texas, for example, has not finished worse than 17th since 2011 in the 247Sports Composite rankings with four Top 10 classes to its credit. But in that time the Longhorns have compiled a record of 41-35 overall.
Wisconsin, on the other hand, hasn’t had a recruiting class rank better than 32nd in the last six years – its 2012 class ranked 65th – but still managed two Top 10 finishes in that stretch. Michigan State, with an average class ranking of 27.5 since 2011, is another team that’s won without elite recruiting numbers (three Top 10 finishes since 2011.)
Mostly, though, sustained winners in college football can credit a sturdy recruiting pipeline.
Alabama, even with its loss to Clemson, remains the sport’s standard. A major reason for that is the Crimson Tide have compiled six straight No. 1 overall recruiting classes. That’s a stat that’s translated to six straight Top 10 finishes – the only team in the country to do so.
Right behind Alabama in terms of Top 10 finishes the last six years are Ohio State (4), Florida State (4), and Oregon (4). Over the last six years Ohio State’s finished with six Top 10 classes, Florida State with five (including four in the Top 5) and Oregon with four Top 20 classes. Incidentally, the Ducks last three classes have averaged out to 21.3, while their classes from 2010-12 had an average finish of 12.7. That’s a good place to start if you’re looking to explain the team’s 13-12 record the last two years.
Teams with three Top 10 finishes in the AP poll during that stretch include Clemson, Oklahoma, Stanford, Michigan State and South Carolina.
Those are all teams that did or do recruit exceptionally well.
Some programs like TCU, Baylor or an Iowa have popped up in the Top 10 for a year or two. But without a steady year-to-year recruiting trove, they drop out quickly. TCU and Iowa went a combined 14-12 one year after a Top 10 finish in 2015. Baylor, two years after a Top 10 run in 2014, went 7-6 a year ago.
Other factors certainly contribute to these falls, for Baylor especially, but it’s hard for programs in the Power Five to win year after year without exceptional recruiting.
It’s what makes Alabama what it is.
Nick Saban, at least as the legend goes, said after Alabama beat LSU to win the 2011 national championship: “That damn game cost me a week of recruiting.”
That’s how important recruiting is to the sport. The sport’s foremost coach would have rather recruited than waste his time winning the championship he’s recruiting for – Alabama, of course, has the No. 1-ranked class once again in 2017.
If that doesn’t explain the importance of the lifeblood of the sport, nothing will.
Since 2002 The ACC has never had 3 teams in the Top 10 of the Rivals Team Rankings. Would be great to see it happen in 2018 w/ Miami, Clemson and FSU. Clemson has a numbers limitation so that might hold them back but I like seeing the ACC making moves..
2003 Miami #5 NC State #7
2004 FSU #3 Miami #5
2005 FSU #2 Miami #7
2006 FSU #3
2007 NONE
2008 Miami #5 FSU #9
2009 FSU #7 UNC #9
2010 FSU #10
2011 FSU #2 Clemson #8
2012 FSU #6 Miami #9
2013 FSU #10
2014 FSU #4
2015 FSU #3 Clemson #4
2016 FSU #2 Clemson #6
2017 TBD
https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2017/01/rx-expansion-and-wake-forest.html?showComment=1485529375279#!/2017/01/blue-chips-by-state-2013-17.html
Here's a summary by P5 conference (including only states which contain a member school):
| Conf | Total | %Total |
| SEC | 875 | 52.81% |
| ACC | 564 | 34.04% |
| B1G | 317 | 19.13% |
| Pac-12 | 275 | 16.60% |
| BigXII | 262 | 15.81% |
As you can see, adding Texas was a real coup for the SEC!
The ACC lost some rich recruiting territory when it lost Maryland (not that ACC teams still don't sign players from there), but even so the conference remains ahead of the Big Ten - and won't pass the SEC without adding a team from Texas, too!
https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2017/01/rx-expansion-and-wake-forest.html?showComment=1485529375279#!/2017/01/vt-recruiting-trend.html
Virginia Tech Recruiting Trends
| Year | Rank | Total | 5* | 4* | 3* | ur | %bluechip | %unranked |
| 2017 | 19 | 26 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 1 | 19% | 4% |
| 2016 | 40 | 22 | 0 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 5% | 0% |
| 2015 | 29 | 24 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 17% | 0% |
| 2014 | 27 | 30 | 0 | 4 | 23 | 3 | 13% | 10% |
| 2013 | 21 | 25 | 1 | 4 | 15 | 5 | 20% | 20% |
| 2012 | 21 | 31 | 0 | 6 | 21 | 4 | 19% | 13% |
| 2011 | 36 | 22 | 0 | 3 | 17 | 2 | 14% | 9% |
The Hokies' 2017 recruiting class is shaping up to be what some have described as one the best classes in school history. Yet there are no 5-star players, and only 5 4-stars - so what makes it better than previous classes?
Blue Chip%
There are 5 "blue chip" (4 or 5 star) players committed to Virginia Tech so far. That's 19% of the class of 26 total players. While that is high, the Hokies have brought in 17% (2015), 19% (2012) and even 20% (2013) before. In fact, VT signed 11 blue chips in 2 years (2012-13). This year is good, but that alone is not what makes it one of the best...
Unranked%
There aren't enough blue chip players to fill your roster with them. In fact, 50% is considered "championship" roster level. The rest of the team would ideally be serviceable 3-star players, but most (not all) teams also sign a few players below the 3-star level. In that 2012-13 span, the Hokies gave out scholarships to 9 guys rated 2-star or less. However, so far this year there's only 1 such player in the 2017 class. In other words, 96% of the class is 3-star or better.
No comments:
Post a Comment