Pac-12 Recruiting Recap: A Comparative Grid

by Ash Jackson on Feb 4, 2012 7:00 AM MST in Buffaloes Football Recruiting

College Football recruiting is comparative by its very nature, and why not? "This class is better than that class," it helps us through the winter months. I just think the way recruiting classes are ranked is wrong, wrong, wrong. So last year I used maths to make my own way to assess recruiting classes that has since been co-opted by other online writers, but don't despair: you're reading the genuine article!

For anyone unfamiliar, the chart reads like-a-so: the total number of 2012 recruits is beneath each school's name, and each subsequent number is the percentage share of their class that a particular group comprises. For instance how 3.7% of Colorado's class is a Quarterback, or how Stanford's and Utah's classes are over 55% Linemen.

School	UA	ASU	Cal	CU	UO	OSU	Stan.	UCLA	SC	Utah	U-Dub	Wazzu
Total	24	23	18	27	21	23	22	26	15	28	25	26
QB	8.3	0.0	5.6	3.7	9.5	4.3	0.0	3.8	0.0	3.6	8.0	3.8
RB	4.2	8.7	11.1	14.8	4.8	4.3	4.5	3.8	6.7	3.6	8.0	11.5
WR	16.7	13.0	22.2	11.1	14.3	8.7	18.2	19.2	13.3	7.1	4.0	11.5
TE	4.2	8.7	0.0	11.1	9.5	8.7	0.0	3.8	6.7	0.0	0.0	0.0
OL	16.7	17.4	22.2	7.4	4.8	30.4	31.8	19.2	20.0	28.6	20.0	26.9
Off%	50.0	47.8	61.1	48.1	42.9	56.5	54.5	50.0	46.7	42.9	40.0	53.8
DL	12.5	17.4	5.6	29.6	28.6	4.3	22.7	15.4	20.0	28.6	20.0	19.2
LB	12.5	17.4	11.1	0.0	4.8	17.4	9.1	3.8	13.3	10.7	4.0	11.5
DB	16.7	13.0	5.6	14.8	14.3	17.4	13.6	15.4	20.0	10.7	16.0	11.5
Def%	41.7	47.8	22.2	44.4	47.6	39.1	45.5	34.6	53.3	50.0	40.0	42.3
ATH/ST	8.3	4.3	16.7	7.4	9.5	4.3	0.0	15.4	0.0	7.1	20.0	3.8
3	70.8	65.2	55.6	74.1	42.9	69.6	40.9	57.7	13.3	67.9	56.0	53.8
4	8.3	13.0	38.9	7.4	47.6	8.7	45.5	30.8	66.7	17.9	20.0	7.7
5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	13.6	3.8	20.0	0.0	4.0	0.0

Interesting numbers are bolded, notes and comments are after the jump...

Notes:

UA	New DB's all over 6'2" - yikes!
ASU	RB, 6'0" 215, 4.5 40… x2! - look for ASU to actually have a 2nd dimension on offense 4 DT's recruited, maybe their DL will be able to collectively play all 4 quarters...zing!
Cal	Did not sign another Italian kicker, Tevecchio family declares blood feud Signed the next Okafor to play DL
CU	8 DL recruits; I'm still hoping for the 7-1-3 Defensive line-up
UO	Twin brother DB's from Arlington, TX; Who do they think they are, Texas? 4-star TE's are 6'5" and 6'6"; Who do they think they are, Stanford?
OSU	All OL recruits are at least 6'3" and at least 260 lbs
Stan.	They got Barry Sanders, he wasn't even their best get; Then they got an All-Star line for him to run behind. I remain unimpressed. They seem to skip on an 'Athlete' the same way they'd skip on an 'Undeclared' freshman...
UCLA	A 6'5" 310 lb. DT? I see a 3-4 in their very near future
SC	SC adds a top-flight WR to their already top-flight WR group, and two great linemen to boot
Utah	Holy Line-Depth, Batman! I'm sure they're hoping that at least 2 of these guys pan out...
U-Dub	They may have landed two Quarterbacks this year, but look for them to only have one by this time next year
Wazzu	"Best Receiver in California" are words you don't want to see going to the Mike Leach offense. They are.

So... You know that last year I used the maths to say how CU's recruiting class was under-rated? Yeah... we actually benefit from the 'flawed' ranking systems this year by the fact that our recruiting class is so large.

But before you start to get all weepy-eyed in your Ralphie beer mug, remember that some of our best players over the years weren't the highest ranked recruits exiting high school; and while statistically speaking higher stars correlate to better results on the field on the whole.

Which leaves room for CU to fall between the cracks... in a good way, and start winning games consistently; all behind this recruiting class. Furthermore; I'm calling bunk on any ranking system that is unfavorable to Colorado... meaning this system of mine you just read about sucks! Don't listen to it!

What do y'all say? I say Go Buffs!

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

good job, Ash

I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of the best way to accurately gauge a recruiting class, to account for star rankings vs. volume and what not, but it’s inherently impossible. First off, you can’t really incorporate need. Embree said he was happy with the OL and LB depth. I don’t really agree, and even Embree would admit that, if you don’t sign anyone at a position, you’re going to spin it such that you were happy with depth. It also doesn’t take scheme into account. Going forward, if Wazzu signs 5 WRs and no TEs and Stanford signs 3 TEs and 1 WR, it doesn’t necessarily mean one class is better than the other. Wazzu will use all of those receivers and Stanford will use all of those TEs. This also ties back into need. That said, here are some other statistical analyses to think about (none of which I am asking you to do. Just something to think about):

Weighting a chart similar to this by using percentage of total recruiting points for each position. For instance, based on the numbers above, one could guess that Stanford, OSU, Wazzu, and Utah all had somewhat similar OL classes. I expect if those positions were weighted by star rankings, Stanford would blow all the others out of the water. Point being, if I sign 3 2 star running backs and you sign 1 5 star running back, my class would look better as a percentage, but that would change when weighting for recruiting rankings.

Re-ranking recruits on a bell curve, with the top 20% receiving 5 stars, the next 20% 4, and et cetera. This obviously doesn’t take overall class quality into account. For instance, this year’s class was considered historic for OL, and pretty poor for QB. But… It would account for how well schools fill their positions of need on a single year basis, and year in and year out would probably reflect better on how schools consistently recruit. The argument that, say Sam Bradford was an All America and a 3 star recruit so rankings don’t matter has always bothered me because, well yeah- there are a LOT more 3 star recruits than 5 star. Only a small group of schools will have 5 star players (and often will have other 5 stars lined up behind them). The other >100 of us are lining up 3 stars, thus providing a much greater chance that they will succeed. Grading on a bell curve would smooth out that disparity.

all in all, more info and more viewpoints on the subject is always better. So I applaud you Ash, for doing something I am entirely too lazy to do on my own.

This bowling alley has my favorite restaurant in Pawnee

by Phil Fraser on Feb 4, 2012 8:05 AM MST reply actions

no one cares later

but to me the best way to evaluate a class is over each of the next two-three years create a playing time matrix, because that is the bottom line, can these guys get on the field? But of course we are a now world, and we must have some analysis of these classes now.

by brettden on Feb 4, 2012 3:51 PM MST up reply actions

that would be a bad way to gauge a recruiting class

Just because someone plays doesn’t mean he was any good. It just means there’s no one better.

This bowling alley has my favorite restaurant in Pawnee

by Phil Fraser on Feb 4, 2012 4:36 PM MST up reply actions

exactly

I remember people arguing that last years recruiting class was good because so many played as true freshman. so many played as true freshman because we were horrible and decimated by injury!

by nebraskasux on Feb 4, 2012 5:45 PM MST up reply actions

I agree with you completely

but then once you’re trying to second guess which skill player best fits into which offensive system for who, you might as well become a scout for the school, because you are one.

I make reckless conclusions based on subjective data.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics - Go Buffs!

by Ash Jackson on Feb 7, 2012 7:41 AM MST up reply actions

My biggest problem with rankings

Is that there are many different college offenses. The players needed to play each offense is different. So in giving a player a grade, he might be a 2 star in 1 offense but a 4 star in another. The same can be said about defense.

3-4 defenses are not much different than 5-2 defenses. The outside linebackers are assigned with setting the edge and collapsing the pocket from the outside. Which in a 4-3 defense is assigned to the DE. The amount of DL and lack of LB does not bother me.

by 3nS on Feb 4, 2012 1:17 PM MST reply actions

I don't pay much attention to these "rankings"

It’s all about developing these kids once they get to the college level. Of course it helps if you’ve got good athletes. And I think the Buffs succeeded in doing that this year, for the most part. Looks like we’ve got good players/athletes from good HS programs…..now it’s up to Embree, Bienemy and the boys to coach’em up. I like our class….even if the “rankings” are slightly on the low side compared to rest of Pac12.

by HBbuff on Feb 4, 2012 3:20 PM MST reply actions