[BostonCard]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=7902.msg112713#msg112713 date=1423205112]
Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.
...

While I quibble with some of your specific characterizations of players, of course the overall point that only some fraction of recruited players end up as major contributors is quite true.

What is unclear to me is what you are postulating about how that affects evaluation of recruiting classes. Does that make your estimation of our class better or worse than the national services average (a little worse than 20th)?

My guess is that you were making a point something along the lines that nobody knows how good a class really is until they play their four years and we can look back on their success.  Yes?
[/quote]

To take this further, it seems likely that the proportion of meaningful contributors to the team is going to be relatively independent of long term trends in recruiting.  My guess is that during the Teevens/Wlat reign, the proportion of contributors from each recruiting class is probably pretty similar to what it is now, even though the overall quality of the recruiting classes during those years was much lower.  No matter what, you need 5 offensive linemen playing.  If, say, even if the 12 offensive linemen on your roster are potential all-conference types, only five of them will be starters and maybe a couple more will be meaningful contributors.  Conversely, even if all 12 of your offensive linemen would be so bad as to not be starters in a Div II team, you still have to play at least five of them.

Looking at the proportion who play, then, really only helps in comparing short term fluctuations in class quality.  Yes, if you have a rapid improvement in recruiting, then you will see a lot of the younger guys leapfrogging the older players.  And generally, if you have a very heterogenous recruiting (some awesome guys and some very questionable types), you will see the really great players hold down starting spots for three or even four years, while the other guys never hit the field.  But if things are pretty even, and you get a consistent inflow of good players, what you will see is a lot of guys redshirting, becoming spot contributors their rs freshman year, becoming solid contributors their rs sophomore years, and then starters their junior or senior years, with the cycle continuing.

A better metric to use if you want to see how good a recruiting class is, is to look at external metrics: the numbers who become all-conference or all-American.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=7902.msg112713#msg112713 date=1423205112]
Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.
...

While I quibble with some of your specific characterizations of players, of course the overall point that only some fraction of recruited players end up as major contributors is quite true.

What is unclear to me is what you are postulating about how that affects evaluation of recruiting classes. Does that make your estimation of our class better or worse than the national services average (a little worse than 20th)?

My guess is that you were making a point something along the lines that nobody knows how good a class really is until they play their four years and we can look back on their success.  Yes?
[/quote]

To take this further, it seems likely that the proportion of meaningful contributors to the team is going to be relatively independent of long term trends in recruiting.  My guess is that during the Teevens/Wlat reign, the proportion of contributors from each recruiting class is probably pretty similar to what it is now, even though the overall quality of the recruiting classes during those years was much lower.  No matter what, you need 5 offensive linemen playing.  If, say, even if the 12 offensive linemen on your roster are potential all-conference types, only five of them will be starters and maybe a couple more will be meaningful contributors.  Conversely, even if all 12 of your offensive linemen would be so bad as to not be starters in a Div II team, you still have to play at least five of them.

Looking at the proportion who play, then, really only helps in comparing short term fluctuations in class quality.  Yes, if you have a rapid improvement in recruiting, then you will see a lot of the younger guys leapfrogging the older players.  And generally, if you have a very heterogenous recruiting (some awesome guys and some very questionable types), you will see the really great players hold down starting spots for three or even four years, while the other guys never hit the field.  But if things are pretty even, and you get a consistent inflow of good players, what you will see is a lot of guys redshirting, becoming spot contributors their rs freshman year, becoming solid contributors their rs sophomore years, and then starters their junior or senior years, with the cycle continuing.

A better metric to use if you want to see how good a recruiting class is, is to look at external metrics: the numbers who become all-conference or all-American.

BC