As I understand the rules we have to be at full 85 scholarships next year.I think we played at 72 this year. So I would guess Ga. Southern will be signing a ton this February.

(11-18-2013 11:33 PM)Atlanta Trojan Wrote:  I Think Troy knows this is Larrys last year. They are waiting for the new coach to come in and recruit his own players....Thats JMO

I don't see our recruiting being like that. They haven't even tried for a reason.

Targets: http://troy.247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/Targets

Offers: http://troy.247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/Offers

Someone's doing something...maybe it's Hartwell?

Troy has held its recruits close to the vest, so as not to give everyone else chances to pick them off.

With any defense, Troy should beat Texas State. I hope for a last-game, for-the-coach win. I could see a Troy blow-out or yet another very close loss.

(11-19-2013 11:05 AM)BMarkey Wrote:  Troy has held its recruits close to the vest, so as not to give everyone else chances to pick them off.

With any defense, Troy should beat Texas State. I hope for a last-game, for-the-coach win. I could see a Troy blow-out or yet another very close loss.

Weeeeell, Let's ALL hope for the latter

I don't know what to expect next week... Hoping for a win, but not holding my breath.

Attendance is going to suck, students out of town, Black Friday shopping, day before Iron Bowl.

It's gonna be the worst I've seen it possibly

Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless, especially at the midmajor level. There are a ton of future NFL players out there who for whatever reason aren't on the radar. Maybe they play at the wrong position, in the wrong system, were hurt their junior or senior year or are just a growth spurt away from having BCS size/weight. In Idaho's case only one of the 6 or so players we sent to the NFL the past had any other FBS offers (it was a gray shirt and that list includes a probowler and a starter), and if you expand that pool to draftees and FA signees who didn't stick on the actual roster only 1 out of that 8-10 guys had another offer and it was UNLV. Recruiting sites are designed to track the all american caliber players, not the diamonds in the rough that takes a sharp eye to see. Even then the coaches need to develop that talent and put them in the right system to succeed. Look at who evaluates the players and none of them have played or coached at the college level, so why take their word as gospel?

Also many midmajor coaches tell their players not to talk about their commitment so that way it helps keep them hidden and prevents another school from swooping in and stealing them away. Not to mention there really isn't a school in the sun belt that kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. As midmajors we're behind the BCS conferences and once they fill up their spots and turn kids away you'll see them come to us.

Not to mention even if you are winning the recruiting battles and have a few 4 and 5 star players that's nice, but they can't sign for another 2+ months so there is plenty of time for them to change their minds. Enjoy following recruiting stories but if you're panicking in November it's time to step away from the keyboard and pick up another hobby.

(11-20-2013 02:33 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless, especially at the midmajor level. There are a ton of future NFL players out there who for whatever reason aren't on the radar. Maybe they play at the wrong position, in the wrong system, were hurt their junior or senior year or are just a growth spurt away from having BCS size/weight. In Idaho's case only one of the 6 or so players we sent to the NFL the past had any other FBS offers (it was a gray shirt and that list includes a probowler and a starter), and if you expand that pool to draftees and FA signees who didn't stick on the actual roster only 1 out of that 8-10 guys had another offer and it was UNLV. Recruiting sites are designed to track the all american caliber players, not the diamonds in the rough that takes a sharp eye to see. Even then the coaches need to develop that talent and put them in the right system to succeed. Look at who evaluates the players and none of them have played or coached at the college level, so why take their word as gospel?

Also many midmajor coaches tell their players not to talk about their commitment so that way it helps keep them hidden and prevents another school from swooping in and stealing them away. Not to mention there really isn't a school in the sun belt that kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. As midmajors we're behind the BCS conferences and once they fill up their spots and turn kids away you'll see them come to us.

Not to mention even if you are winning the recruiting battles and have a few 4 and 5 star players that's nice, but they can't sign for another 2+ months so there is plenty of time for them to change their minds. Enjoy following recruiting stories but if you're panicking in November it's time to step away from the keyboard and pick up another hobby.

I think someone is bitter noone wants to play for Idaho.

(11-20-2013 02:40 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(11-20-2013 02:33 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless, especially at the midmajor level. There are a ton of future NFL players out there who for whatever reason aren't on the radar. Maybe they play at the wrong position, in the wrong system, were hurt their junior or senior year or are just a growth spurt away from having BCS size/weight. In Idaho's case only one of the 6 or so players we sent to the NFL the past had any other FBS offers (it was a gray shirt and that list includes a probowler and a starter), and if you expand that pool to draftees and FA signees who didn't stick on the actual roster only 1 out of that 8-10 guys had another offer and it was UNLV. Recruiting sites are designed to track the all american caliber players, not the diamonds in the rough that takes a sharp eye to see. Even then the coaches need to develop that talent and put them in the right system to succeed. Look at who evaluates the players and none of them have played or coached at the college level, so why take their word as gospel?

Also many midmajor coaches tell their players not to talk about their commitment so that way it helps keep them hidden and prevents another school from swooping in and stealing them away. Not to mention there really isn't a school in the sun belt that kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. As midmajors we're behind the BCS conferences and once they fill up their spots and turn kids away you'll see them come to us.

Not to mention even if you are winning the recruiting battles and have a few 4 and 5 star players that's nice, but they can't sign for another 2+ months so there is plenty of time for them to change their minds. Enjoy following recruiting stories but if you're panicking in November it's time to step away from the keyboard and pick up another hobby.

I think someone is bitter noone wants to play for Ida who.

fixed it for ya!

(11-20-2013 02:33 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless, especially at the midmajor level. There are a ton of future NFL players out there who for whatever reason aren't on the radar. Maybe they play at the wrong position, in the wrong system, were hurt their junior or senior year or are just a growth spurt away from having BCS size/weight. In Idaho's case only one of the 6 or so players we sent to the NFL the past had any other FBS offers (it was a gray shirt and that list includes a probowler and a starter), and if you expand that pool to draftees and FA signees who didn't stick on the actual roster only 1 out of that 8-10 guys had another offer and it was UNLV. Recruiting sites are designed to track the all american caliber players, not the diamonds in the rough that takes a sharp eye to see. Even then the coaches need to develop that talent and put them in the right system to succeed. Look at who evaluates the players and none of them have played or coached at the college level, so why take their word as gospel?

Also many midmajor coaches tell their players not to talk about their commitment so that way it helps keep them hidden and prevents another school from swooping in and stealing them away. Not to mention there really isn't a school in the sun belt that kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. As midmajors we're behind the BCS conferences and once they fill up their spots and turn kids away you'll see them come to us.

Not to mention even if you are winning the recruiting battles and have a few 4 and 5 star players that's nice, but they can't sign for another 2+ months so there is plenty of time for them to change their minds. Enjoy following recruiting stories but if you're panicking in November it's time to step away from the keyboard and pick up another hobby.

Yes what you say is very true, but let's not kid ourselves here... There's a correlation that can be found with programs who recruit well and programs who win.. not always cause there are bad coaches with good talent, but I'm talking overall. Rankings aren't perfect (I prefer the 247 Composite), but they give you an idea of the level of talent you have in the pipeline and how you're doing against your peers. Yes, these are only verbals and nothing has been signed, but again, history will show that majority of your verbals will sign and that's why the coaching staff keeps in contact to make sure they are still interested.

(11-20-2013 04:07 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-20-2013 02:33 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless, especially at the midmajor level. There are a ton of future NFL players out there who for whatever reason aren't on the radar. Maybe they play at the wrong position, in the wrong system, were hurt their junior or senior year or are just a growth spurt away from having BCS size/weight. In Idaho's case only one of the 6 or so players we sent to the NFL the past had any other FBS offers (it was a gray shirt and that list includes a probowler and a starter), and if you expand that pool to draftees and FA signees who didn't stick on the actual roster only 1 out of that 8-10 guys had another offer and it was UNLV. Recruiting sites are designed to track the all american caliber players, not the diamonds in the rough that takes a sharp eye to see. Even then the coaches need to develop that talent and put them in the right system to succeed. Look at who evaluates the players and none of them have played or coached at the college level, so why take their word as gospel?

Also many midmajor coaches tell their players not to talk about their commitment so that way it helps keep them hidden and prevents another school from swooping in and stealing them away. Not to mention there really isn't a school in the sun belt that kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. As midmajors we're behind the BCS conferences and once they fill up their spots and turn kids away you'll see them come to us.

Not to mention even if you are winning the recruiting battles and have a few 4 and 5 star players that's nice, but they can't sign for another 2+ months so there is plenty of time for them to change their minds. Enjoy following recruiting stories but if you're panicking in November it's time to step away from the keyboard and pick up another hobby.

Yes what you say is very true, but let's not kid ourselves here... There's a correlation that can be found with programs who recruit well and programs who win.. not always cause there are bad coaches with good talent, but I'm talking overall. Rankings aren't perfect (I prefer the 247 Composite), but they give you an idea of the level of talent you have in the pipeline and how you're doing against your peers. Yes, these are only verbals and nothing has been signed, but again, history will show that majority of your verbals will sign and that's why the coaching staff keeps in contact to make sure they are still interested.

So how does BJC take in a bunch of 2 and 3 star players and beat big name programs who consistently land 4 and 5 star players on a regular basis? Why is it that UW, Michigan, Notre Dame and Texas consistently get top ranked classes and struggle to be relevant in the rankings while Baylor, NIU and Fresno are in the top 16? In 2008 UW went 0-12 despite having the #12 class in 08, #29 in 07, #35 in 06, #55 in 05 and #22 in 04.

Evaluating players is a very imperfect art form, he'll just look at the NFL draft and see how many busts there are because scouts couldn't predict what a 21 year old with years of film against similar competition would look like on the field. Now take that draft field, multiply it by at least 1000, reduce the film available, put them against inferior talent and get rid of the legions of scouts that the pros have. Every year scout reviews the 50 5 star players from the class 4 years ago and it is shocking to see how many never pan out. If you can't figure out what impact the undisputed top prospects will have, how on earth are they going to say that the 5'10-170-4.6 rb from a small school in WA who is going to move to safety is going to be? Because right now he's starting on Sundays, yet only Idaho and EWU saw any potential in him.

There are over 1.1 million HS football players, around 280k are seniors. There are 3100 FBS scholarships to be had. So only the top 98.9th percentile will go on to the next level. There will be divisions of talent, but is there really a massive difference between that kid who is in the 99.5th versus the 99th percentile? And do you honestly believe that it is possible to reliably split those hairs with massive variables in play? And do you think that with solid coaching and play calling that 99'er could improve and become more productive than that 99.5er?

If you have the top ranked class obviously there is some talent there, but you need to do something with that talent because a program with less heralded prospects can roll in and still beat the pants off the top ranked players.

You have to go up or down two classes to see a lot of difference. You're right, its an imperfect artform. But a class full of 5-Stars will almost always outperform a class of 3-Stars. Where it gets cloudy is between adjacent classes, like ones full of 2's vs ones full of 3s or 5s vs 4s. I'll take a class full of 4's over what we are getting now anyday. As would any of you.

Yes there are anomalies where Boise out coaches teams with higher star ratings, and vice versa. But as a whole, the star system is mostly accurate.

(11-21-2013 01:27 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  You have to go up or down two classes to see a lot of different. You're right, its an imperfect artform. But a class full of 5-Stars will almost always outperform a class of 3-Stars. Where it gets cloudy is between adjacent classes, like ones full of 2's vs ones full of 3s or 5s vs 4s. I'll take a class full of 4's over what we are getting now anyday. As would any of you.

Yes there are anomalies where Boise out coaches teams with higher star ratings, and vice versa. But as a whole, the star system is mostly accurate.

Yep

(11-21-2013 01:27 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  You have to go up or down two classes to see a lot of difference. You're right, its an imperfect artform. But a class full of 5-Stars will almost always outperform a class of 3-Stars. Where it gets cloudy is between adjacent classes, like ones full of 2's vs ones full of 3s or 5s vs 4s. I'll take a class full of 4's over what we are getting now anyday. As would any of you.

Yes there are anomalies where Boise out coaches teams with higher star ratings, and vice versa. But as a whole, the star system is mostly accurate.

agreed

(11-21-2013 01:14 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(11-20-2013 04:07 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-20-2013 02:33 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless, especially at the midmajor level. There are a ton of future NFL players out there who for whatever reason aren't on the radar. Maybe they play at the wrong position, in the wrong system, were hurt their junior or senior year or are just a growth spurt away from having BCS size/weight. In Idaho's case only one of the 6 or so players we sent to the NFL the past had any other FBS offers (it was a gray shirt and that list includes a probowler and a starter), and if you expand that pool to draftees and FA signees who didn't stick on the actual roster only 1 out of that 8-10 guys had another offer and it was UNLV. Recruiting sites are designed to track the all american caliber players, not the diamonds in the rough that takes a sharp eye to see. Even then the coaches need to develop that talent and put them in the right system to succeed. Look at who evaluates the players and none of them have played or coached at the college level, so why take their word as gospel?

Also many midmajor coaches tell their players not to talk about their commitment so that way it helps keep them hidden and prevents another school from swooping in and stealing them away. Not to mention there really isn't a school in the sun belt that kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. As midmajors we're behind the BCS conferences and once they fill up their spots and turn kids away you'll see them come to us.

Not to mention even if you are winning the recruiting battles and have a few 4 and 5 star players that's nice, but they can't sign for another 2+ months so there is plenty of time for them to change their minds. Enjoy following recruiting stories but if you're panicking in November it's time to step away from the keyboard and pick up another hobby.

Yes what you say is very true, but let's not kid ourselves here... There's a correlation that can be found with programs who recruit well and programs who win.. not always cause there are bad coaches with good talent, but I'm talking overall. Rankings aren't perfect (I prefer the 247 Composite), but they give you an idea of the level of talent you have in the pipeline and how you're doing against your peers. Yes, these are only verbals and nothing has been signed, but again, history will show that majority of your verbals will sign and that's why the coaching staff keeps in contact to make sure they are still interested.

So how does BJC take in a bunch of 2 and 3 star players and beat big name programs who consistently land 4 and 5 star players on a regular basis? Why is it that UW, Michigan, Notre Dame and Texas consistently get top ranked classes and struggle to be relevant in the rankings while Baylor, NIU and Fresno are in the top 16? In 2008 UW went 0-12 despite having the #12 class in 08, #29 in 07, #35 in 06, #55 in 05 and #22 in 04.

Evaluating players is a very imperfect art form, he'll just look at the NFL draft and see how many busts there are because scouts couldn't predict what a 21 year old with years of film against similar competition would look like on the field. Now take that draft field, multiply it by at least 1000, reduce the film available, put them against inferior talent and get rid of the legions of scouts that the pros have. Every year scout reviews the 50 5 star players from the class 4 years ago and it is shocking to see how many never pan out. If you can't figure out what impact the undisputed top prospects will have, how on earth are they going to say that the 5'10-170-4.6 rb from a small school in WA who is going to move to safety is going to be? Because right now he's starting on Sundays, yet only Idaho and EWU saw any potential in him.

There are over 1.1 million HS football players, around 280k are seniors. There are 3100 FBS scholarships to be had. So only the top 98.9th percentile will go on to the next level. There will be divisions of talent, but is there really a massive difference between that kid who is in the 99.5th versus the 99th percentile? And do you honestly believe that it is possible to reliably split those hairs with massive variables in play? And do you think that with solid coaching and play calling that 99'er could improve and become more productive than that 99.5er?

If you have the top ranked class obviously there is some talent there, but you need to do something with that talent because a program with less heralded prospects can roll in and still beat the pants off the top ranked players.

UT

In any population there is a bell curve. That bell curve on players in this universe is the difference of inches in a play, and hundredths of a second in speed, and quickness. So do not get all caught up in the 1%, there are huge differences in size, speed, and football IQ within that limited universe. If not the same teams would not be on top all the time and the same teams on the bottom all the time. There is a huge difference in the Jims and Joes as well as the coaches, yet we see coaches move up and down all the time.

(11-20-2013 02:33 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless, especially at the midmajor level. There are a ton of future NFL players out there who for whatever reason aren't on the radar. Maybe they play at the wrong position, in the wrong system, were hurt their junior or senior year or are just a growth spurt away from having BCS size/weight. In Idaho's case only one of the 6 or so players we sent to the NFL the past had any other FBS offers (it was a gray shirt and that list includes a probowler and a starter), and if you expand that pool to draftees and FA signees who didn't stick on the actual roster only 1 out of that 8-10 guys had another offer and it was UNLV. Recruiting sites are designed to track the all american caliber players, not the diamonds in the rough that takes a sharp eye to see. Even then the coaches need to develop that talent and put them in the right system to succeed. Look at who evaluates the players and none of them have played or coached at the college level, so why take their word as gospel?

Also many midmajor coaches tell their players not to talk about their commitment so that way it helps keep them hidden and prevents another school from swooping in and stealing them away. Not to mention there really isn't a school in the sun belt that kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. As midmajors we're behind the BCS conferences and once they fill up their spots and turn kids away you'll see them come to us.

Not to mention even if you are winning the recruiting battles and have a few 4 and 5 star players that's nice, but they can't sign for another 2+ months so there is plenty of time for them to change their minds. Enjoy following recruiting stories but if you're panicking in November it's time to step away from the keyboard and pick up another hobby.

I promise you that recruiting ranking matters when your team is getting the good ones.

Anyone who says they would not rather have a class full of four and five star recruits is lying. I hate to say it but these recruiting sites may miss out on a big time recruit every once and a while but they are pretty darn accurate. When five star recruits (not guys who transfer to another school because they have mental issues) play on non power teams they usually make huge impacts.

Look at Houston this year and research on who that big WR is that's putting up insane numbers, a five star recruit. Look at Missouri who SHOULD be a bottom feeder in the SEC. Beckham another game changer is a five star recruit. You can even look at teams like USC, they would probably be undefeated right now if they had their usual five star recruit playing at QB like they were used to like Matt Barkley. Don't even get me started on guys like Clowney.

There's probably not much difference between a 2 star recruit and a 3 star recruit but 4 and 5 star recruits that have NFL potential coming out of high school.

Of course everyone brags about the good recruits when you get them, but how has that treated Texas? #23 class in 2013, #1 in 2012, #3 in 2011, #3 in 2010 and #7 in 2009. You'd think they would be a top 15 team at worst right? Well they haven't been relevant since 2009 and made some brief appearances in the ranking this year.

But as far as mid major recruiting goes, the 4 star/5 star debates are erroneous since there is maybe a handful of 4 star players who go to mid majors. I can think of 4 over the past few years but I don't follow non WAC recruiting much. The 2-3 star rankings are where the rankings completely go out the window because there are too many players who simply aren't evaluated properly. Yes anyone can look at someone like that Fournette kid out of New Orleans and say "holy *** that guy is amazing" but the low BCS/mid major/FCS prospects are very hard to distinguish.

Take a look at the top 3 mid major players in the major statistical categories, their national rank in that stat is in parenthesis.

Passing yards
(2) Fales 2 star Not ranked
(3) Wenning 2 star NR
(4) Carr 4 star #16

Rushing yards
(2) Bibbs 2 star #136
(3) Lynch (a QB) 2 star #137 QB
(4) Andrews 2 star NR WR

Receiving
(2) Snead 2 star #212
(4) Jones former walkon 0 stars NR
(13) ECU's Justin Hardy I can't find anything on him

Tackles
(1) Smith 2 star #60 MLB
(3) Stanton 2 star NR JC ILB
(4) Cody Peterson 2 star NR RB

Sacks
(t-2) Martin Ifedi 2 star NR DE *he is at Memphis but he committed while they were a midmajor so I'm counting him
(t-2) Demarcus Lawrence 3 star NR JC DE
(t-6) Ejiro Ederaine 3 star #98 DE

INT's
(1) Bobby McCain 3 star #62 CB *another Memphis mm commit
(2) D'Joun Smith 2 star NR CB
(4) Lorenzo Doss 3 star #164 WR

This is hardly a scientific study, but out of the top 18 midmajor performers 1 was a 4 star, 3 3 stars (one was a JC who aren't ranked), 3 ranked 2 stars, and 4 unranked 2 stars plus a walk on. Note that in the scout system, 2 star unranked players are basically prospects that are in the system as chaff, and when they get a FBS offer they get their generic 2 star rating. So out of the top 17 mid major skill position guys I could find info on, a good 15 or so were complete surprises to the scout recruiting gurus.

It's fun to talk about and there's an element of truth in the rankings, but there's more to winning football games than recruiting.