(05-20-2014 10:55 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:09 AM)GSUsTALON Wrote:   I’d rather have “superior coaching” and average talent than rest all my hopes on a ranking system of an athletes “possible” potential.

You are going to have to recruit at the FBS level. You can't rely on getting the avg. talent and just plug them in where you think they fit best. That doesn't work at any IA conference.

If you can't recruit, then you don't win in FBS, its that simple. Just ask Idaho or NMSU.

I think we're doing ok in that department... http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Footbal...erence=SBC

I agree with your post but I do think they are getting better. 24/7 because of the composite ratings that takes into account Rivals, Scout, ESPN and their own.

At the G5 level you still have to do some digging (like how many of the recruits actually show up on the roster, or roster turnover).

Because I live near ASU getting details on them is fairly easy, but not on the other SBC teams, so I have to rely on other sources for an overview.

We are two to three years away from being able to use this type of data at the SBC level if then.

three to five years ago those programs weren't getting the coverage they do now so the data is unreliable and more importantly incomplete.

(05-20-2014 12:21 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  We are two to three years away from being able to use this type of data at the SBC level if then.

three to five years ago those programs weren't getting the coverage they do now so the data is unreliable and more importantly incomplete.

I agree when to are talking about the move-ups but have been working with them a little. They got at least some data for all the 5 years on everyone but GaSo and TxSt, who go 4 years.

Still might have some bugs in the all important 'composite ratings' on 24/7 (I mentioned the former SEC starter at ASU who had the base 70 rating on the composite until I told them of his background).

Still not sure I know the nuts & bolts of their ratings, and 24/7 has not replied as to how AppSt and GaSt were ranked so high last year by their site when their composite is based on Rivals, Scout, ESPN and their rankings. Neither were ranked by Rivals, or ESPN and Scout had GaSo #10 and AppSt #4 in the SBC. There is a fly in the soup somewhere, but I'm confident they will get the bugs out, with a little help.

App's 2012 24/7 class shows 6 recruits, 2011 and before is even worse. Only rivals covered App before 2013. Thus the incomplete data.

(05-20-2014 12:51 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  App's 2012 24/7 class shows 6 recruits, 2011 and before is even worse. Only rivals covered App before 2013. Thus the incomplete data.

Recruiting data on FCS programs is always incomplete, because no one cares about FCS recruiting, per 24/7.

Rivals has the data, if you'd like to take the time to do an analysis, do it right, or be lazy and we can dismiss it.

(05-20-2014 01:05 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Rivals has the data, if you'd like to take the time to do an analysis, do it right, or be lazy and we can dismiss it.

Dismiss what you want but because 24/7 does includes a composite rating based on not only their ratings but the other major sites, and it has the potential to be the best site.

Not fair to hold their feet to the fire for teams that were FCS because no one cares about their recruiting.

Anyone that is serious about recruiting knows that you look at offers not stars. That is the area we are focusing on because kids with offers from major schools, are normally better prospects than those who do not have such offers. Want to compared classes, look at who offered those players. That is why we know ASU had a solid class, probably the best class in the SBC.

That's all fine and dandy last year I said the championship ran through A-State we won there and got a conference championship (co). This year I will tell you the championship runs through Louisiana if you want it you will have to beat us no disrespect to A-State. Games are won and lost on the field recruiting classes sells tickets play on the field win games. GEAUX CAJUNS.

Either you are serious about trying to find a correlation between recruiting and results on the field or you aren't. You have admitted the data is flawed and incomplete, that is enough to dismiss the results and conclusions drawn from it for me.

Science lab must have been tough.

(05-20-2014 01:30 PM)CAJUNCOUNTRY Wrote:  That's all fine and dandy last year I said the championship ran through A-State we won there and got a conference championship (co). This year I will tell you the championship runs through Louisiana if you want it you will have to beat us no disrespect to A-State. Games are won and lost on the field recruiting classes sells tickets play on the field win games. GEAUX CAJUNS.

I don't see how or why anyone would not pick ULL. I would.

But looking at only talent, and I look at it closer than most, it would not shock me if ASU won at their place, because they are that talented.

Still several of us are working to get the sits like 24/7 working the way they should, and they want to get there.

(05-20-2014 01:33 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Either you are serious about trying to find a correlation between recruiting and results on the field or you aren't. You have admitted the data is flawed and incomplete, that is enough to dismiss the results and conclusions drawn from it for me.

Science lab must have been tough.

I don't own Rivals, Scout, ESPN or 24/7, the fault is not with me. They have a problem with the data, not me.

You can accept or dismiss any recruiting ranking, I don't care, just don't be surprised if the final season standings are not close to these composite rankings.

I gave the reason I used 24/7...they have composite rankings.

You want to analyze the other go right ahead, but the data will have the same flaws. Best bet compile your own data and eliminate the flaws, and we will wait on the results.

In the mean time I will use the 'flawed' data these sites use to rank recruiting classes if you don't mine.

I tend to agree about individuals. There is no telling how well they will do and to those that give credit to 4 and 5 star players, many of those have been busts as well. No, the recruiting evaluation world is not perfect by any means. It does, however, give a good idea at a high level. So you can say X class was rated highly and it will more than likely translate onto the field as every schools class will contain duds and diamonds at roughly the same rate.

It's not an exact science by any means, but it's an indicator that can give clues as to how a school will do down the road.

If you believe that Idaho will be the 4th best team and NMSU will be the 5th best team then you have an incredibly low opinion of the Sun Belt. No offense meant towards Idaho or NMSU, but they are coming off pretty bad seasons and for them to make that sort of jump in a better league than they were in last year would be truly remarkable.

I'm not buying it. Recruiting is a bigger part of the equation for elite programs because there isn't much separation among the coaches. At our level it's more about coaching and less about recruits. Also, as was pointed out, this doesn't count transfers.

I was a member of rivals for 4 years, now 247 the last two years. I enjoy their services and agree 247 does the best job currently. That said the data is flawed and can not be used in scientific application to determine the outcome on the field is my point.

It is flawed even when applied to the most "accurate" recruiting information. How many years in the past 15 has Boise St. had a higher ranked recruiting class than ND? How many years has Boise fielded the better team?

Well, he has them at 5 and 7, not 4 and 5.

It's a combination of talent and coaching. If you don't have the talent, all the coaching in the world won't help you and vice versa. Like I said before, it's an indicator that let's you make a projection at a high level. Of course there are lots of other variables.

(05-20-2014 02:05 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  If you believe that Idaho will be the 4th best team and NMSU will be the 5th best team then you have an incredibly low opinion of the Sun Belt. No offense meant towards Idaho or NMSU, but they are coming off pretty bad seasons and for them to make that sort of jump in a better league than they were in last year would be truly remarkable.

I'm not buying it. Recruiting is a bigger part of the equation for elite programs because there isn't much separation among the coaches. At our level it's more about coaching and less about recruits. Also, as was pointed out, this doesn't count transfers.

Talent evaluation is more critical at our level, that is part of coaching. Not all recruits share the same value with every program based upon the system you run. What is very clear is that good linemen are a premium at any level, but certainly more critical at our level because most kids that are 290 or 300 plus and can move well will sign with higher ranked FBS programs.

You can find skilled players all over the south that can run. They may not be the largest, but there is plenty of skilled athletes with speed in the south.

But I do get a good laugh when I read or hear fans say that this kid is a great sign because he is 6'6, 300 pounds. I don't care how big you are, if you can't move then your size means nothing.

(05-20-2014 02:13 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I was a member of rivals for 4 years, now 247 the last two years. I enjoy their services and agree 247 does the best job currently. That said the data is flawed and can not be used in scientific application to determine the outcome on the field is my point.

It is flawed even when applied to the most "accurate" recruiting information. How many years in the past 15 has Boise St. had a higher ranked recruiting class than ND? How many years has Boise fielded the better team?

I'm on Scout but thinking about 24/7.

Don't care how a schools talent compared to the schools they don't play just the ones they play.

About Boise, I agree 100% that winning is the critical, and a less talented team that knows how to win will have a good shot at beating a more talented team that does not know how to win.

It just happens that in the SBC the two teams that have recruited well the last five years are also doing most of the winning. That happens a lot by the way, because Boise did recruit well compared to its conference mates.

(05-20-2014 02:13 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I was a member of rivals for 4 years, now 247 the last two years. I enjoy their services and agree 247 does the best job currently. That said the data is flawed and can not be used in scientific application to determine the outcome on the field is my point.

It is flawed even when applied to the most "accurate" recruiting information. How many years in the past 15 has Boise St. had a higher ranked recruiting class than ND? How many years has Boise fielded the better team?

The data is incomplete when it comes to any FCS move ups however if you look at the top 25 recruiting classes there is a strong correlation in how the polls look at the end of the year. Getting talent and having access to it has been proven as the most important factor in winning at the higher levels. As you move down the list the correlation weakens as coaching plays more and more of a factor and its not like kids rated below a high three star are really getting an in depth valuation. Outside the top forty ranked classes only a handful of teams have a four star kid only one with two. Between 40-70 looks like the second tier of programslower P5 and established G5's. 70 to about a 100 are hodge podge of new FBS programs and programs that are up and down a lot. The rest of the bottom does seems to reflect recent standings of the conferences. I think one of the main reasons there is little correlation past 40 or so is because of more coaching changes. Top forty programs usually choose to change coach where as in the case of ArkSt and us this last year it is losing coaches to higher paying jobs.

(05-20-2014 02:14 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  Well, he has them at 5 and 7, not 4 and 5.

It's a combination of talent and coaching. If you don't have the talent, all the coaching in the world won't help you and vice versa. Like I said before, it's an indicator that let's you make a projection at a high level. Of course there are lots of other variables.

I did miscount Idaho and miscalculated NMSU's relative position as well. It should be Idaho 5 and NMSU 6 (they are tied for 6th with USA).

I agree with what you said. It's not just talent and it's not just coaching. It's a combination. I would think coaching is a little more important on our level but that is very debatable. The original poster said that he thinks the final standings could look something like that list based on recruiting rankings alone. That just isn't practical.