clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Pac-12 Recruiting Recap: A Comparative Grid

New, 11 comments

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!