Recruiting class rankings - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Recruiting class rankings (/thread-6700.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Recruiting class rankings (/thread-6700.html)
Pages:
1
2
Recruiting class rankings - Redrum - 02-05-2014
With most commitments in, but could change:
Scout: Stanford #12. ASU close behind #13. Only direct rival rated higher is Notre Dame #6
(Notes: UCLA #18Â Oregon #22Â SC#31 UDub #38Â Kal #43)
Rivals: Stanford #13 UCLA next closest #16 Only direct rival rated higher is Notre Dame #9
(Notes:Â ASU #17 Oregon #29Â SC#32 UDub #38Â Kal #44)
247:  Stanford #12 UCLA next closest #17 Only direct rival rated higher is Notre Dame #10
(Notes:Â USC #18 Oregon #20Â ASU #23 UDub #38Â Kal #47)
Re: Recruiting class rankings - OutsiderFan - 02-05-2014
It sure seems to me Stanford classes should get a handicap or some kind of grading curve due to the fact there is so little attrition at Stanford compared to other schools, and as a result Stanford classes are always smaller than other programs.Â
Though I suppose you can always look at average rating per recruit as a sort of indicator of the same. By that measure, there is a Top 3 that separates itself from the pack a bit, and the classes of all the schools rated 4-20 are pretty evenly rated by avg. rating.
History pretty much shows us if you aren't in the Top 20, you won't be competing for championships. There is a wider gap in avg. recruit rating between Cal and Stanford than Stanford and Alabama. In fact, the gap between Cal and Stanford is double the gap between Stanford and Alabama, according to 247.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - Hulk01 - 02-05-2014
Outstanding class, doesn't yet crack the top six or seven but those classes will attrit and this one won't.
It's also our most balanced class ever, with studs in every position group except wide receiver.
We filled the key positions in a power offense: QB, TE, FB, pulling guard. All four of the OLs are legitimate two-year starter candidates and Tucker's a three. Marx is a phenomenal addition. He could bring back the complete West Coast fullback threat while crushing defenders for our running back. Shullz--best TE in America.Â
Outstanding LBs with brobdingnagian upside in Perez and Veach as a much longer (seven foot wingspan) Murphy.Â
Leaders in Phillips, Simmons, and Alfieri, A great add at corner in Alexander who is needed tomorrow and knows it (He was never going anywhere else. He committed just after I did.)
A possible phenom in Chryst, numbers and talent at DB with more to come.
Best class in the conference by a lot. UCLA is badly skewed to DB types; lots of that talent will never play.
Great day for us. Could easily surpass the 2012 class early and the 2009 class later.
As I promised months ago, :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Re: Recruiting class rankings - Bruce Wang - 02-05-2014
Given that as Shaw puts it, football is a junior and senior sport, we would need to pair another stud class with this one. The 2013 class, while high in overall quality, is small in numbers. Seems that if Shaw pulled off another stud class for 2015, those two classes could take Stanford to the very top.
So the question I would pose to Hulk the Oracle: What's your prognostication for the 2015 class?
Re: Recruiting class rankings - tfeldstein - 02-05-2014
I think this might be the best class on signing day since the Walsh II class. Great balance throughout the positions, but I am sad about one guy who would have put this over the top: Royce Freeman.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - washingtonismoney - 02-05-2014
(02-05-2014, 10:17 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Outstanding class, doesn't yet crack the top six or seven but those classes will attrit and this one won't.
To wit, I started putting some numbers to this before the '13 season but was too lazy to finish -- though I confined it to Pac-12 plus N.D. Essentially, if you look at the classes of '08 thru '12 and account for bad attrition plus major injuries, Stanford gets some significant advantages. (METHODOLOGICAL NOTE: I don't consider early draft entries bad attrition. I wasn't able to account for instances in which the coach, ah, encouraged the attrition along. I count unfilled fifth years as bad attrition. I only counted injuries that took a big chunk of the year. If you feel that unduly distorts the numbers, well, feel free to nudge the numbers.)
Percentage of games lost to attrition
| Games | %age attrition | %age injury[table][tr][td] |
| SC | 12.94% | 4.2% |
| UCLA | 13.03% | 3.23% |
| Stanford | 8.64% | 1.23% |
| 59ers | 15.63% | .94% |
| UW | 22.2% | 3.32% |
| N.D. | 14.04% | 1.82% |
Re: Recruiting class rankings - tfeldstein - 02-05-2014
Bear in mind thought that there is another side of the coin in that we live with our mistakes for 4 years and others wash them out and try again.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - washingtonismoney - 02-05-2014
(02-05-2014, 12:20 PM)bowlorbust link Wrote:Bear in mind thought that there is another side of the coin in that we live with our mistakes for 4 years and others wash them out and try again.
Yup, I can't account for that. Probably why Shaw et al. are so careful handing out offers.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - yvonne - 02-05-2014
(02-05-2014, 12:12 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=9514.msg83262#msg83262 date=1391620668]
Outstanding class, doesn't yet crack the top six or seven but those classes will attrit and this one won't.
To wit, I started putting some numbers to this before the '13 season but was too lazy to finish -- though I confined it to Pac-12 plus N.D. Essentially, if you look at the classes of '08 thru '12 and account for bad attrition plus major injuries, Stanford gets some significant advantages. (METHODOLOGICAL NOTE: I don't consider early draft entries bad attrition. I wasn't able to account for instances in which the coach, ah, encouraged the attrition along. I count unfilled fifth years as bad attrition. I only counted injuries that took a big chunk of the year. If you feel that unduly distorts the numbers, well, feel free to nudge the numbers.)
Percentage of games lost to attrition
| Games | %age attrition | %age injury[table][tr][td] |
| SC | 12.94% | 4.2% |
| UCLA | 13.03% | 3.23% |
| Stanford | 8.64% | 1.23% |
| 59ers | 15.63% | .94% |
| UW | 22.2% | 3.32% |
| N.D. | 14.04% | 1.82% |
[/quote]
Did you post your methodology somewhere in the thread? I missed it.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - washingtonismoney - 02-05-2014
(02-05-2014, 12:37 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Did you post your methodology somewhere in the thread? I missed it.
Not really. Basically I considered how many games out of 48 (=12*4) a player lost for bad attrition (= transfer, non-renewal of fifth year of scholarship, getting suspended and/or kicked out of school) or major injury. Didn't count early entry for draft (= good attrition); can't account for coaches de facto cutting players. This was for classes of 2008 through 2012; information current as of summer 2013.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - Cowboy1 - 02-05-2014
Great job by the staff. Appears the good ole days will go on for a while longer.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - martyup - 02-07-2014
Man did SC come out of nowhere to take the Pac-12 recruiting title this year. Sark is a shark.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - FarmBoy - 02-07-2014
IIRC, Kiffen did really well his first years recruiting for 'SC as well. People just get excited about change, when it's an institution with 'SC's success.
To be seen if he can improve on the 24-21 conference record he achieved at UW.
The man is nothing, not consistent. After going 4-5 his first year, in the league, he went 5-4 the last 4. And supposedly with better squads each year (as TW's players were replaced by his.) If that's not a red flag of mediocrity, I don't know what is. Clearly, he did something right early on to to turn things around so quickly, but that program wasn't going anywhere the past 3 years, it seems.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - Hulk01 - 02-07-2014
Yes, minimal credit to Sark. As Kiffin proved, even bad coaches get good recruits there. And there's the felling that SC can only get better with a real coach.Â
His last two years at Washington do suggest a low ceiling. They had the talent and the home field advantage to win one more game a year, but didn't.Â
Re: Recruiting class rankings - washingtonismoney - 02-07-2014
(02-07-2014, 03:10 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:The man is nothing, not consistent. After going 4-5 his first year, in the league, he went 5-4 the last 4. And supposedly with better squads each year (as TW's players were replaced by his.) If that's not a red flag of mediocrity, I don't know what is. Clearly, he did something right early on to to turn things around so quickly, but that program wasn't going anywhere the past 3 years, it seems.
TO BE FAIR to Sarkisian, the Pac-12 steadily improved (more or less) throughout his tenure. TO BE UNFAIR to Sarkisian, that's not a great sign: your second derivative should be better.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - CowboyIndian - 02-07-2014
Plus...Sark is a whining, accusatory dog that I will enjoy watching snivel through post-loss press conferences in LA.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - FarmBoy - 02-07-2014
Quote:TO BE FAIR to Sarkisian, the Pac-12 steadily improved (more or less) throughout his tenure. TO BE UNFAIR to Sarkisian, that's not a great sign: your second derivative should be better.
That, and he's competing in the same Pac12 that he was having more difficulty navigating.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - Bruce Wang - 02-07-2014
This is what concerns me: Sark performed about as well as the expected talent he recruited. Without sanctions and Kif, $C will be in the top 5 again in expected talent.
This is what gives me hope: he's a slime and so is at least one of his former assistants. The potential for another infraction is there.
Re: Recruiting class rankings - Robbie - 02-07-2014
(02-07-2014, 03:26 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:TO BE FAIR to Sarkisian, the Pac-12 steadily improved (more or less) throughout his tenure. TO BE UNFAIR to Sarkisian, that's not a great sign: your second derivative should be better.
You can't differentiate a discrete function. Everyone knows that.
(Yes, my tongue is in my cheek. Although it is true that you cannot differentiate a discrete function.)
Re: Recruiting class rankings - BostonCard - 02-07-2014
(02-07-2014, 04:42 PM)Publius link Wrote:This is what concerns me: Sark performed about as well as the expected talent he recruited. Without sanctions and Kif, $C will be in the top 5 again in expected talent.
This is what gives me hope: he's a slime and so is at least one of his former assistants. The potential for another infraction is there.
What does it say that Sark to USC upgraded the coaching at both schools?
BC