I do not regard Rivals ranking so accurate when trying to make an absolute measure. But, are the Rivals rankings reliable enough to provide a relative measure of increasing or decreasing quality in the recruits signed? My experience, over the years, is that the Rivals rankings do provide a useful indicator of a school moving up or moving down in the quality of classes recruited.

EDITED TO ADD THIS SENTENCE: From my perspective, the year to year change is important, not so much the relative rank.

2012 Rivals ranking shown first and then 2013 Rivals ranking is shown next.

As a whole, four Nbe invitees showed an increase in rankings and three Nbe showed a decrease.

The Nbe invitees, excluding Houston, did not have a class ranking above 67. The average ranking of the seven invitees is 76. The ranking of the four Nbe invitees excluding #50 Houston and #67 SMU is a 81.

Cincy dropped from #50 in 2012 to #76 in 2013.

UConn increased from #77 in 2012 to #64 in 2013.

USF ranked #49 in 2012 and #49 in 2013. USF thus held its ranking because of its excellent new coach despite the loss of WVA, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Rutgers and a very disappointing USF 2012 football record.

Houston: 59, 50
SMU: 89, 67
UCF: 90, 71
Memphis: Not ranked in top 123, 89

Tulane: 80, 79
Temple: 76, 85
ECU: 73, 93

In other news, WVU cracked the Rivals Top 25! That has only happened 1 other time in the past 10 years.

(02-07-2013 09:53 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  In other news, WVU cracked the Rivals Top 25! That has only happened 1 other time in the past 10 years.

WVA moved from #48 in 2012 to #24 in 2013. Congrats!

Moving to a power conference obviously provides the opportunity to really boost ratings. But, in NonAQ conferences, not so much.

For NonAQ teams, they pick after the Floridas and Florida States, the Texas's and TAMUs, and changing conference affilation from CUSA to Nbe does not seem to have the great recruiting advantage...it is a lateral transfer.

I regard the Rivals rankings as probably not so accurate in absolute terms. But, following Rivals and other recruiting rankings over the years, the question is: Is it a reliable indicator of relative change? That is, is your recruiting moving up or moving down? And, here, I think the Rivals Ranking is useful.

IMO the recruiting services put way too much weight to the highest ranked recruits. Look at how Ole Miss jumped way up after Robert Nkemdiche signed with them. That one signing jumped them over 10 spots in most recruiting rankings...

I still remember how the Jason Gwaltney signing jumped WVU way up in the rankings, and he never amounted to anything in Morgantown. His half brother, Scooter Berry, who was signed to help secure Gwaltney's signature, was a much better recruit for WVU. Berry came in as a FB, but kept getting bigger and became a mainstay on the D-line...

I thought Scooter Barry was a basketball guard for KU!

Here's a picture of Scooter with his good friend Johnny Dingle...

Ole Miss jumped from #40 to #7 (#5 in ESPN rankings). Southern Miss actually stayed pretty even (#70 to #72) after its winless season. One troubling thing I noticed was Missouri dropped into the 40s one year into SEC membership. The Tigers may need to broaden their recruiting strategy.

(02-07-2013 10:58 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Ole Miss jumped from #40 to #7 (#5 in ESPN rankings). Southern Miss actually stayed pretty even (#70 to #72) after its winless season. One troubling thing I noticed was Missouri dropped into the 40s one year into SEC membership. The Tigers may need to broaden their recruiting strategy.

Missouri, like Arkansas, is now cut off Texas recruiting.

Regarding USM, I have to regard this year's class as outstanding given its hapless 2012 season and the coaching turmoil and conference turmoil.

FIU is paying a huge recruiting price for firing their coach.

(02-07-2013 10:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the recruiting services put way too much weight to the highest ranked recruits. Look at how Ole Miss jumped way up after Robert Nkemdiche signed with them. That one signing jumped them over 10 spots in most recruiting rankings...

I don't follow all of the rankings, but Ole Miss was ranked between 10 and 14 in the ones I saw before Nkemdiche's signing. They followed RN with Laremy Tunsil, Austin Golson and Antonio Conner, each four stars or higher. Late in the process they were a possible landing spot for five other highly rated players, like Chris Jones, Frank Herron, Phillip Daniel and Christian Morris. But even if they had signed a couple of those guys, their class wouldn't have passed Florida, Alabama, Ohio State or Notre Dame in the rankings.

Rivals is terrible. When you compare 247Sports, Scout and ESPN they are somewhat in line. With that said, there is some legitimacy in these recruiting sites but nothing you want to hang your hat on. ECU saw a good jump this year.

Let's put it this way. There are going to be relatively the same number of athletes available each year. Most schools recruit their state and then regionally. Only a few really recruit nationally but that matters not if we are talking about the new Big East schools. The new Big East schools recruit mostly against conferences in the east.

These are the conferences the new Big East schools would recruits against

SEC
ACC
Big Ten
Big XII (to a lesser extent)
--------
Big East
--------
C-USA
MAC (to a lesser extent)
Sun Belt

Kids that would have settled for being second string on a Big East team rather than go to a C-USA team now can go to that same (former/soon to be former) C-USA team that is under the Big East banner and possibly be first string. The same holds true for kids that might rather play second or third string in the SEC/Big Ten than be on one of the former Big East teams (Louisville, Pitt, etc.). They can now make that move...all because the perception is that they've moved up the ladder.

New Big East schools won't get the bump that might have come had the Big East retained AQ. But it's almost a lock that there will be some bump in their recruiting. Unfortunately, that creates a larger gap between former C-USA schools and the current ones. I suspect admission standards will play a huge role in which C-USA schools will remain competitive. They may have to relax their standards to keep up. I know that some C-USA schools already do that in an effort to compete. How can you blame them?

(02-07-2013 09:41 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  I do not regard Rivals ranking so accurate when trying to make an absolute measure. But, are the Rivals rankings reliable enough to provide a relative measure of increasing or decreasing quality in the recruits signed? My experience, over the years, is that the Rivals rankings do provide a useful indicator of a school moving up or moving down in the quality of classes recruited.

2012 Rivals ranking shown first and then 2013 Rivals ranking is shown next.

As a whole, four Nbe invitees showed an increase in rankings and three Nbe showed a decrease.

The Nbe invitees, excluding Houston, did not have a class ranking above 67. The average ranking of the seven invitees is 76. The ranking of the four Nbe invitees excluding #50 Houston and #67 SMU is a 81.

Cincy dropped from #50 in 2012 to #76 in 2013.

UConn increased from #77 in 2012 to #64 in 2013.

USF ranked #49 in 2012 and #49 in 2013. USF thus held its ranking because of its excellent new coach despite the loss of WVA, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Rutgers and a very disappointing USF 2012 football record.

Houston: 59, 50
SMU: 89, 67
UCF: 90, 71
Memphis: Not ranked in top 123, 89

Tulane: 80, 79
Temple: 76, 85
ECU: 73, 93

Looks like SMU may have had the largest gain....89 to 67

Maybe someone should take all of the sites and average them out and see what happens. UC's ratings were all over the place... ESPN and Rivals had UC way down the list, 247 and Scout had UC much higher rated.

(02-07-2013 11:32 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Let's put it this way. There are going to be relatively the same number of athletes available each year.

There's also the same number of schools.

Quote:Kids that would have settled for being second string on a Big East team

Like say Rutgers, or Pitt, or West Virginia, or Syracuse...

Quote:rather than go to a C-USA team

Like ECU, or Marshall, or UCF...

Quote:now can go to that same (former/soon to be former) C-USA team that is under the Big East banner and possibly be first string.

Not really. I mean the kid could do that, but I don't think the kid passed up ECU for the Big East. He passed up ECU for a better football school (Pitt, WVU) or a school in a better football conference (USF, Rutgers).

So I don't think the shuffling helps ECU that much. Obviously, ECU is now better positioned than Marshall, but I think what happened is that Marshall got downgraded more than ECU getting upgraded. Like you said, most of the recruiting competition is local, and ECU didn't leapfrog anybody. It's more like running up an escalator that's going down. West Virginia and Louisville are still ahead of you, but you and UCF caught up to USF when USF slowed down.

Quote:The same holds true for kids that might rather play second or third string in the SEC/Big Ten than be on one of the former Big East teams (Louisville, Pitt, etc.). They can now make that move...all because the perception is that they've moved up the ladder.

I think the schools that joined power conferences have some more reality to the perception. Rutgers and Maryland especially, the schools joining the ACC less so.

Did anything change for Syracuse vs BC? Not really. Pitt vs Penn State? No. Three years ago, a recruit considering Syracuse and BC was considering two BCS-AQ schools in weak conferences. Same story today. Three years ago, a recruit considering Pitt and Penn State was considering Pitt, which has some history and is in a weaker AQ conference, vs Penn State. No real change there either.

Rutgers vs Pitt changed.

Quote:New Big East schools won't get the bump that might have come had the Big East retained AQ. But it's almost a lock that there will be some bump in their recruiting.

Not a lock at all. ECU went from being a strong program in a non-AQ conference to being a strong program in a lower-FBS conference. I don't think the perception gap between ECU and the ACC schools closed much at all.

Quote:Unfortunately, that creates a larger gap between former C-USA schools and the current ones.

It does do that, because while ECU is still basically still in C-USA, Marshall is basically in the Sun Belt with FIU and Middle Tennessee.

(02-07-2013 11:56 AM)mlb Wrote:  Maybe someone should take all of the sites and average them out and see what happens. UC's ratings were all over the place... ESPN and Rivals had UC way down the list, 247 and Scout had UC much higher rated.

Yep. 247 had UC at #58 and Scout had them rated #50.

A big issue with Rivals is that we don't have anyone running the board there following recruits. ESPN has a deep seeded hatred of Cincinnati and I am not sure of the genesis. I know everyone says that ESPN "hates their school", but with UC there is a lot of evidence to actually suport that claim.

Wow, john...you missed it completely. I guess I'll take the blame since it was my message to communicate.

For the most part, you agreed with my points. A few others I'm not sure I understand much less see the logic in yours. But hey, that would be your responsibility to communicate that properly.

(02-07-2013 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 11:32 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Let's put it this way. There are going to be relatively the same number of athletes available each year.

There's also the same number of schools.

Agreed and this was the entire basis of what followed. As it stands, my comment and yours support my view.

(02-07-2013 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 11:32 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Kids that would have settled for being second string on a Big East team

Like say Rutgers, or Pitt, or West Virginia, or Syracuse...

Exactly what I said...

(02-07-2013 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 11:32 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  rather than go to a C-USA team

Like ECU, or Marshall, or UCF...

Exactly what I said...

(02-07-2013 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 11:32 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  now can go to that same (former/soon to be former) C-USA team that is under the Big East banner and possibly be first string.

Not really. I mean the kid could do that, but I don't think the kid passed up ECU for the Big East. He passed up ECU for a better football school (WVU) or a school in a better football conference (Pitt, USF, Rutgers).

So I don't think the shuffling helps ECU that much. Obviously, ECU is now better positioned than Marshall, but I think what happened is that Marshall got downgraded more than ECU getting upgraded. Like you said, most of the recruiting competition is local, and ECU didn't leapfrog anybody. It's more like running up an escalator that's going down. West Virginia and Louisville are still ahead of you, but you and UCF caught up to USF when USF slowed down.

The first paragraph is hammering my point home. When ECU moves to the Big East they are getting those players who may not have come under the C-USA banner. The same thing happens for WVU, Pitt, Syracuse. There are kids in who might have gone to the Big Ten or SEC rather than play for a Big East team. Now that they are in the ACC it may be enough to sway them towards that school. I'm sure it's not a lot of kids, but it is and will continue to happen. ECU's coaches have said as much. UCF's did as well.

I agree with your escalator comments. It does involve both the moving up of new Big East teams and the backing off of C-USA teams...as well as the slowing down of other Big East teams. Marshall is keeping up recruiting-wise because its admission standards are far, far below those of everyone else. What else can it do to keep competing at this point?

(02-07-2013 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 11:32 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  The same holds true for kids that might rather play second or third string in the SEC/Big Ten than be on one of the former Big East teams (Louisville, Pitt, etc.). They can now make that move...all because the perception is that they've moved up the ladder.

I think the schools that joined power conferences have some more reality to the perception. Rutgers and Maryland especially, the schools joining the ACC less so.

Did anything change for Syracuse vs BC? Not really. Pitt vs Penn State? No. Three years ago, a recruit considering Syracuse and BC was considering two BCS-AQ schools in weak conferences. Same story today. Three years ago, a recruit considering Pitt and Penn State was considering Pitt, which has some history and is in a weaker AQ conference, vs Penn State. No real change there either.

Rutgers vs Pitt changed.

Sorry, you can isolate areas to support your point. IMO, Pitt will have a much easier time recruiting as an ACC member than it did as a Big East member. ECU, UCF, etc. will have an easier time recruiting as a Big East memer than it did a C-USA member. That's the generality we are exploring here. I'm sure there are specific instances that are glaringly different but not enough to sway the overall positive affect it has to move "up" in conference perception.

(02-07-2013 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 11:32 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  New Big East schools won't get the bump that might have come had the Big East retained AQ. But it's almost a lock that there will be some bump in their recruiting.

Not a lock at all. ECU went from being a strong program in a non-AQ conference to being a strong program in a lower-FBS conference. I don't think the perception gap between ECU and the ACC schools closed much at all.

What does the gap between ECU and the ACC schools have to do with it? We're not really (and shouldn't be) comparing what is in this world two levels a part. ECU recruiting changes need to be compared to the conference above it, which it will be joining soon, versus where it is was last year. The Big East conference may be coming down a bit but undoubtedly ECU is climbing up to it as well. Also pulling away from the anchor that C-USA has become. Hence your escalator comments.

(02-07-2013 01:12 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Wow, john...you missed it completely. I guess I'll take the blame since it was my message to communicate.

For the most part, you agreed with my points. A few others I'm not sure I understand much less see the logic in yours. But hey, that would be your responsibility to communicate that properly.

Put simply, recruiting in the Big East/Metro Conference 2016 is going to be a lot like recruiting in C-USA 2010. It's going to be better than C-USA 2016, if that's your point.

Quote:The first paragraph is hammering my point home. When ECU moves to the Big East they are getting those players who may not have come under the C-USA banner. The same thing happens for WVU, Pitt, Syracuse. There are kids in who might have gone to the Big Ten or SEC rather than play for a Big East team. Now that they are in the ACC it may be enough to sway them towards that school.

No. Pitt didn't move anywhere on the ladder. In 2010, they were in a BCS-AQ conference, but not really a top conference like the Big Ten or SEC. That's exactly where they're going to be in 2015.

Quote:Marshall is keeping up recruiting-wise because its admission standards are far, far below those of everyone else. What else can it do to keep competing at this point?

Marshall might slip anyway, because they're closer to the bottom of the ladder now. Kids going to Marshall in 2010 were going to go play ECU, Southern Miss, UCF, Houston, SMU--not BCS-AQ programs, but not the bottom of the barrel. Now it's FIU, MTSU, Charlotte, ODU--bottom of the barrel.

Quote:Sorry, you can isolate areas to support your point. IMO, Pitt will have a much easier time recruiting as an ACC member than it did as a Big East member.

We disagree. Couple of years ago, Pitt was recruiting as a member of the least impressive power conference. Couple years from now, Pitt will be recruiting as a member of the least impressive power conference.

Quote:ECU, UCF, etc. will have an easier time recruiting as a Big East memer than it did a C-USA member. That's the generality we are exploring here.

And I'm saying that's false. It might be true on a very temporary basis, but that only lasts until it sinks in that "Big East football" no longer means Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, Louisville, Rutgers, etc. It means the same thing more or less that C-USA football meant a minute ago. So you'll be getting and not getting the same recruits you were getting a minute ago.

Quote: I'm sure there are specific instances that are glaringly different but not enough to sway the overall positive affect it has to move "up" in conference perception.

You didn't move up. You just avoided moving down, which is effectively what USF, UConn, Cincy, USM and Marshall did.

Quote:What does the gap between ECU and the ACC schools have to do with it?

That's your local competition for NC, VA recruits.

Quote: We're not really (and shouldn't be) comparing what is in this world two levels a part. ECU recruiting changes need to be compared to the conference above it, which it will be joining soon, versus where it is was last year. The Big East conference may be coming down a bit but undoubtedly ECU is climbing up to it as well. Also pulling away from the anchor that C-USA has become. Hence your escalator comments.

If you're just comparing 2013 to 2012, then yes. But I'm comparing 2010 to 2015. And it looks very similar.

(02-07-2013 03:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Put simply, recruiting in the Big East/Metro Conference 2016 is going to be a lot like recruiting in C-USA 2010. It's going to be better than C-USA 2016, if that's your point.

I disagree with you whole heartedly.

(02-07-2013 03:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  No. Pitt didn't move anywhere on the ladder. In 2010, they were in a BCS-AQ conference, but not really a top conference like the Big Ten or SEC. That's exactly where they're going to be in 2015.

If you want to spin it that way. The ACC was/is still a more respected conference plain and simple. Recruits also see that.

(02-07-2013 03:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We disagree. Couple of years ago, Pitt was recruiting as a member of the least impressive power conference. Couple years from now, Pitt will be recruiting as a member of the least impressive power conference.

But still ahead of the Big East, from where they came. They will get some kids who previously wouldn't have gone there because of the BE label.

(02-07-2013 03:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  And I'm saying that's false. It might be true on a very temporary basis, but that only lasts until it sinks in that "Big East football" no longer means Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, Louisville, Rutgers, etc. It means the same thing more or less that C-USA football meant a minute ago. So you'll be getting and not getting the same recruits you were getting a minute ago.

One opinion versus another...just like all of the other ones. No facts here. The one fact is that there are the same number of rungs. Just different numbers of schools at each rung. My opinion is that some kids will feel better about a certain school because they have moved up a rung versus being second or third string at one of their now conference mates. The depth will be spread among the conference. JMO as is yours.

(02-07-2013 03:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You didn't move up. You just avoided moving down, which is effectively what USF, UConn, Cincy, USM and Marshall did.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more. We didn't move up to where the Big East used to be but we most certainly did move up. No way we moved laterally. Even with AQ gone the BE is better off than C-USA.

(02-07-2013 03:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  That's your local competition for NC, VA recruits.

We recruit NC, SC, VA and GA heavily. That's regional, not local. It has already gotten better. Not sure how you could argue otherwise.

(02-07-2013 03:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If you're just comparing 2013 to 2012, then yes. But I'm comparing 2010 to 2015. And it looks very similar.

You couldn't possibly know how it will look then. Your opinion is no more solid than mine.

(02-07-2013 10:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Here's a picture of Scooter with his good friend Johnny Dingle...