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 |
|
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. |