[AncientCityIndian]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against USC and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

[AncientCityIndian]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against USC and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

[gocard14]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against Under Stanford Control (again) and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

I'm not sure where he gets that from, but our LB core was relatively average last year. I'm expecting better from them this year with an increase in experience and talent in the mix, but to compare them to our secondary seems to be a big exaggeration. When healthy Meeks, Reid, and Holder all look like first team PAC 12 players and the depth behind them is excellent. No one on the LB core has shown that top end talent yet.

[gocard14]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against Under Stanford Control (again) and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

I'm not sure where he gets that from, but our LB core was relatively average last year. I'm expecting better from them this year with an increase in experience and talent in the mix, but to compare them to our secondary seems to be a big exaggeration. When healthy Meeks, Reid, and Holder all look like first team PAC 12 players and the depth behind them is excellent. No one on the LB core has shown that top end talent yet.

[Mick]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against Under Stanford Control (again) and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

I don't know about easily, especially at U$C, but I think we'll beat them as well.

[Mick]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against Under Stanford Control (again) and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

I don't know about easily, especially at U$C, but I think we'll beat them as well.

[winflop]

[quote author=AncientCityIndian link=topic=17231.msg197911#msg197911 date=1503748857]
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

I'm not sure where he gets that from, but our LB core was relatively average last year.
[/quote]

Average at best, and I hear Alfieri isn't starting because he's got some nicks but until last year's crew demonstrates that it has made major improvements in the offseason I'm not putting this unit anywhere near the plus column

[winflop]

[quote author=AncientCityIndian link=topic=17231.msg197911#msg197911 date=1503748857]
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

I'm not sure where he gets that from, but our LB core was relatively average last year.
[/quote]

Average at best, and I hear Alfieri isn't starting because he's got some nicks but until last year's crew demonstrates that it has made major improvements in the offseason I'm not putting this unit anywhere near the plus column

[fullmetal]

They held serve against Rice, I think.  U$C will be a true test.

[fullmetal]

They held serve against Rice, I think.  U$C will be a true test.

[johnnyo53]

WILDLY OPTIMISTIC ON OUR LBS.  OUR FRONT 7 IS A QUESTION MARK FOR ME.  KALAMBAYI IS ERRATIC AS HELL, OUR BEST LB ALFIERI IS MOVING INSIDE, AND THE REST OF THEM WERE UNREMARKABLE ALTHOUGH OKEREKE SHOWS FLASHES.  PALMA GOT LOTS OF PLAYING TIME BUT HE SEEMS TOO SLOW TO ME.

[johnnyo53]

WILDLY OPTIMISTIC ON OUR LBS.  OUR FRONT 7 IS A QUESTION MARK FOR ME.  KALAMBAYI IS ERRATIC AS HELL, OUR BEST LB ALFIERI IS MOVING INSIDE, AND THE REST OF THEM WERE UNREMARKABLE ALTHOUGH OKEREKE SHOWS FLASHES.  PALMA GOT LOTS OF PLAYING TIME BUT HE SEEMS TOO SLOW TO ME.

[unclechuck]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against Under Stanford Control (again) and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

This is one of the better preseason reviews I've come across; thanks for the link. He's looking pretty sage on Colorado State as well as us out of week zero. Among some of his other reaches (besides CSU), his Duck write up is interesting and a bit of a concern. May be an interesting game, though I still fear WSU a bit more as a sleeper.

[unclechuck]

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ule-roster

Among other revelations, the author considers our linebacker unit as our best and superior even to our vaunted secondary. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, I say we match up really well against Under Stanford Control (again) and will defeat them, possibly easily and possibly to the surprise of college football cognoscenti everywhere;  I`m not overlooking Rice, however.

This is one of the better preseason reviews I've come across; thanks for the link. He's looking pretty sage on Colorado State as well as us out of week zero. Among some of his other reaches (besides CSU), his Duck write up is interesting and a bit of a concern. May be an interesting game, though I still fear WSU a bit more as a sleeper.

[AncientCityIndian]

I feel pretty silly but it just occurred to me that because we recruit fewer people in any four year or 5 year cycle due to our player quality, academic bona fides, etc, we naturally have fewer recruits per year on average than any other Division 1 football power.  Therefore, whatever our recruiting rank, it is pretty much always lower than it should be or would be because of sheer numbers.  Given a balanced assessment with those players who do not stay on the roster from other teams removed from consideration of rank after the fact, a re-ranking a few years later would always place us much higher in the revision.    Why didn`t I ever think of that before and why hasn`t anyone ever pointed it out to me?  I do not remember anyone posting about that on any of our boards but most likely I just missed it.  There is no formula but I would think when we`re #15 or better, we are definitely well within the top 10 in recruiting in any given year.

[AncientCityIndian]

I feel pretty silly but it just occurred to me that because we recruit fewer people in any four year or 5 year cycle due to our player quality, academic bona fides, etc, we naturally have fewer recruits per year on average than any other Division 1 football power.  Therefore, whatever our recruiting rank, it is pretty much always lower than it should be or would be because of sheer numbers.  Given a balanced assessment with those players who do not stay on the roster from other teams removed from consideration of rank after the fact, a re-ranking a few years later would always place us much higher in the revision.    Why didn`t I ever think of that before and why hasn`t anyone ever pointed it out to me?  I do not remember anyone posting about that on any of our boards but most likely I just missed it.  There is no formula but I would think when we`re #15 or better, we are definitely well within the top 10 in recruiting in any given year.

[OutsiderFan]

I feel pretty silly but it just occurred to me that because we recruit fewer people in any four year or 5 year cycle due to our player quality, academic bona fides, etc, we naturally have fewer recruits per year on average than any other Division 1 football power.  Therefore, whatever our recruiting rank, it is pretty much always lower than it should be or would be because of sheer numbers.  Given a balanced assessment with those players who do not stay on the roster from other teams removed from consideration of rank after the fact, a re-ranking a few years later would always place us much higher in the revision.    Why didn`t I ever think of that before and why hasn`t anyone ever pointed it out to me?  I do not remember anyone posting about that on any of our boards but most likely I just missed it.  There is no formula but I would think when we`re #15 or better, we are definitely well within the top 10 in recruiting in any given year.

You've certainly missed a lot of threads that have covered this topic.  There have been several over the years.

[OutsiderFan]

I feel pretty silly but it just occurred to me that because we recruit fewer people in any four year or 5 year cycle due to our player quality, academic bona fides, etc, we naturally have fewer recruits per year on average than any other Division 1 football power.  Therefore, whatever our recruiting rank, it is pretty much always lower than it should be or would be because of sheer numbers.  Given a balanced assessment with those players who do not stay on the roster from other teams removed from consideration of rank after the fact, a re-ranking a few years later would always place us much higher in the revision.    Why didn`t I ever think of that before and why hasn`t anyone ever pointed it out to me?  I do not remember anyone posting about that on any of our boards but most likely I just missed it.  There is no formula but I would think when we`re #15 or better, we are definitely well within the top 10 in recruiting in any given year.

You've certainly missed a lot of threads that have covered this topic.  There have been several over the years.

[fullmetal]

It's been mentioned, but the recruiting threads tend to live in their own pinned/separate thread.  Most metrics don't generally favor Stanford...except the W-L column and hindsight (for now!).

[fullmetal]

It's been mentioned, but the recruiting threads tend to live in their own pinned/separate thread.  Most metrics don't generally favor Stanford...except the W-L column and hindsight (for now!).

[pauloalto]

It's been mentioned, but the recruiting threads tend to live in their own pinned/separate thread.  Most metrics don't generally favor Stanford...except the W-L column and hindsight (for now!).

Using 247Sports ratings for football recruits over the five years 2013 through 2017, here are some totals and averages:

	Total	Average
	Number	Recruit
School	RecruitsÂ	Rating
---------	-----------Â	---------
Alabama	130	93.40
Ohio State	121	91.93
USCÂ	111	91.18
LSU	128	90.94
Florida State	120	90.88
Michigan	115	90.22
Notre Dame	113	90.10
Stanford	93	88.54
Oklahoma	129	88.34

[pauloalto]

It's been mentioned, but the recruiting threads tend to live in their own pinned/separate thread.  Most metrics don't generally favor Stanford...except the W-L column and hindsight (for now!).

Using 247Sports ratings for football recruits over the five years 2013 through 2017, here are some totals and averages:

	Total	Average
	Number	Recruit
School	RecruitsÂ	Rating
---------	-----------Â	---------
Alabama	130	93.40
Ohio State	121	91.93
USCÂ	111	91.18
LSU	128	90.94
Florida State	120	90.88
Michigan	115	90.22
Notre Dame	113	90.10
Stanford	93	88.54
Oklahoma	129	88.34

[CTcard]

	Total	Average
	Number	Recruit
School	RecruitsÂ	Rating
---------	-----------Â	---------
Alabama	130	93.40
Ohio State	121	91.93
Under Stanford Control (again)Â	111	91.18
LSU	128	90.94
Florida State	120	90.88
Michigan	115	90.22
Votre Dame	113	90.10
Stanford	93	88.54
Oklahoma	129	88.34

Are those the top 9 in average recruit rankings, or just a set of prominent programs?

[CTcard]

	Total	Average
	Number	Recruit
School	RecruitsÂ	Rating
---------	-----------Â	---------
Alabama	130	93.40
Ohio State	121	91.93
Under Stanford Control (again)Â	111	91.18
LSU	128	90.94
Florida State	120	90.88
Michigan	115	90.22
Votre Dame	113	90.10
Stanford	93	88.54
Oklahoma	129	88.34

Are those the top 9 in average recruit rankings, or just a set of prominent programs?

[pauloalto]

It's a list of prominent programs. I didn't know who would be the topmost when I first began. Anyone I should add?

[pauloalto]

It's a list of prominent programs. I didn't know who would be the topmost when I first began. Anyone I should add?

[fullmetal]

Texas usually rolls in a great recruiting class every year.  Not that they do much with them...

Florida and Georgia come to mind as well.  Miami is sort of old money but not what they used to be.  Clemson is ascendant.

[fullmetal]

Texas usually rolls in a great recruiting class every year.  Not that they do much with them...

Florida and Georgia come to mind as well.  Miami is sort of old money but not what they used to be.  Clemson is ascendant.

[pauloalto]

Okay, I've added a few more teams to the list, plus each team's win rate for the four years 2013 through 2016. I know the win rate doesn't exactly correlate with these recruiting years, but it's the best I'm going to do.

	Total	AverageÂ	Four YearÂ
	Number	Recruit	Win Rate
School	RecruitsÂ	Rating	2013 - 2016
---------	-----------Â	---------	----------------Â
Alabama	130	93.40	.895
Ohio State	121	91.93	.891
USCÂ	111	91.18	.685
LSU	128	90.94	.700
Florida State	120	90.88	.870
Georgia	134	90.29	.706
Michigan	115	90.22	.627
Notre Dame	113	90.10	.608
Auburn	127	89.62	.660
Clemson	104	89.53	.875
Texas	114	89.21	.480
Florida	121	89.18	.588
Stanford	93	88.54	.759
Oklahoma	129	88.34	.788
Oregon	108	87.71	.698

[pauloalto]

Okay, I've added a few more teams to the list, plus each team's win rate for the four years 2013 through 2016. I know the win rate doesn't exactly correlate with these recruiting years, but it's the best I'm going to do.

	Total	AverageÂ	Four YearÂ
	Number	Recruit	Win Rate
School	RecruitsÂ	Rating	2013 - 2016
---------	-----------Â	---------	----------------Â
Alabama	130	93.40	.895
Ohio State	121	91.93	.891
USCÂ	111	91.18	.685
LSU	128	90.94	.700
Florida State	120	90.88	.870
Georgia	134	90.29	.706
Michigan	115	90.22	.627
Notre Dame	113	90.10	.608
Auburn	127	89.62	.660
Clemson	104	89.53	.875
Texas	114	89.21	.480
Florida	121	89.18	.588
Stanford	93	88.54	.759
Oklahoma	129	88.34	.788
Oregon	108	87.71	.698