All things rankings

[ellitor 33,078]

Take the Bammer flippers stuff to the Rivals section please. There are threads on each of the players mentioned over there.

Thanks E!

This is supposed to be a thread about how well AU is doing in recruiting. We have plenty to discuss about that. We are doing extremely well. Where do you think we finish?

I'm counting a class of 26-27 right now and feel we would be a top 5 class. Higher if some of our 3*s and low 4s get deserved bump ups.

[augolf1716 21,101]

Lets keep this thread about how AU is doing in recruiting. If you want to continue discussing the past take it to PM's............................................

Would hate to have to lock this thread

[bg5 536]

Right now it seems that we are loaded on offense I hope that we can bring some big time player in on "D" as well. I know we have some now but hopefully we can get some D-Line people and LB's. If we can do that we are going to be just about unstoppable since our coaches seem to really be able to make the good ones we have even better.

[AUbritt 611]

Take the Bammer flippers stuff to the Rivals section please. There are threads on each of the players mentioned over there.

Thanks E!

This is supposed to be a thread about how well AU is doing in recruiting. We have plenty to discuss about that. We are doing extremely well. Where do you think we finish?

I'm counting a class of 26-27 right now and feel we would be a top 5 class. Higher if some of our 3*s and low 4s get deserved bump ups.

Things are likely to get interesting in terms of rankings this season, IMO. There's a narrative forming about Auburn vs. Bama, Gus vs. Sabear, and old vs. new. It seems as though most everyone has conceded #1 to Bama again. But I would not be surprised at all to see us right there behind them, breathing down their necks. It just fits the story everyone wants to hear right now. And if it takes a bit of massaging of the star ratings, well, that wouldn't surprise me too much, either.

[AUcivE09 582]

AU having a top 5 class - let alone a top 3 - should scare the crap out of everyone. Gus just took a team that had 1 top 5 recruiting class in the past 5 years and was 13 seconds from winning it all on the heels of a 3-9 season. Once inside the top 5 or 10 of class rankings, it is all about coaching....and we have the best.

[JFDTiger80 790]

IMO, it matters a lot to have a top 5 to top 10 class every year. This will continue to give us the necessary talent to compete with the best. What seems to get lost in this is that it is what our coaches do with our players once we get them that is the difference between winning a lot of games and playing for championships. I like our coaches not only as recruiters but as teachers. Our strength and conditioning which is very important is terrific as well.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I want to have the #1 class just because I want Auburn to beat bama in as many things as possible. Yes, we can beat them on the field with the #2 class. Heck, we can beat them with the #10 class. But let's get that #1 class, just 'cause.

[ellitor 33,078]

AU having a top 5 class - let alone a top 3 - should scare the crap out of everyone. Gus just took a team that had 1 top 5 recruiting class in the past 5 years and was 13 seconds from winning it all on the heels of a 3-9 season. Once inside the top 5 or 10 of class rankings, it is all about coaching....and we have the best.

We were in the top 10 in 4 of 5 years per Rivals which was the most consistant company through that period. 1 top 5 but top 5 to to 10s are splitting hairs. The cuipbard was definitely not bare which helped the quick turn around last year. What I think will keep AU at an elite level is I think attrition of quality players will be a good bit better under Gus than it was under Chiz.

[WarEagle84 0]

Does anyone take the time to go back and re-rank the recruiting classes 4-5 years after the fact? We all know that cumulatively, recruiting matters, but as in the NFL draft, there are a lot of kids whose on-field performance either falls short of or greatly exceeds their ranking. I would be very interested to see numbers on that.

[Ed_ 3]

Does anyone take the time to go back and re-rank the recruiting classes 4-5 years after the fact? We all know that cumulatively, recruiting matters, but as in the NFL draft, there are a lot of kids whose on-field performance either falls short of or greatly exceeds their ranking. I would be very interested to see numbers on that.

SI did it for 2011

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140213/recruiting-class-2011-re-rank/#ixzz2tXLKCjI1

[ellitor 33,078]

Does anyone take the time to go back and re-rank the recruiting classes 4-5 years after the fact? We all know that cumulatively, recruiting matters, but as in the NFL draft, there are a lot of kids whose on-field performance either falls short of or greatly exceeds their ranking. I would be very interested to see numbers on that.

FWIW even though there are misses on 5 and 4 *s the % of 5*s who made the NFL per capita is > % of 4*s who made the NFL. and likewise the % of 4*s who made the NFL per capita is > % of 3*s who made the NFL. 5 and 4* kids have advantages in many cases but what they do with those advatages and the coaching they get greatly determines if they reach their potential. For some being a 3* can be an advantage also. The kids who feel they have a chip on them or something to prove tend to thrive as 3*s.

[Tivo48 31]

Here's a list of the top 32 draft prospects for this year with their star rating coming out of HS for anyone interested:

http://247sports.com...spects-28361765

By my count:

4 5*s

16 4*s

10 3*s

2 2*s

EDIT: Another important thing to look at though, is the number of recruits at each ranking. Using the 2011 composite class (just had to pick one), there were:

30 5*s (4/30 = 13.3% chance of being a first round pick).

264 4* (6.06%)

1138 3* (0.88%)

I'm not going to do 2* because it's taking forever to scroll through 50 players at a time, but you get the idea.

Personally, percentages are more important than simply using number of players for each ranking. Conclusion from all this is yes, there's ample proof 3*s can be coached up to be great players (I know great college player doesn't necessarily mean top draft pick, but I couldn't think of a better measure.), but chances are better as ranking increases.

[ellitor 33,078]

Here's a list of the top 32 draft prospects for this year with their star rating coming out of HS for anyone interested:

http://247sports.com...spects-28361765

By my count:

4 5*s

16 4*s

10 3*s

2 2*s

EDIT: Another important thing to look at though, is the number of recruits at each ranking. Using the 2011 composite class (just had to pick one), there were:

30 5*s (4/30 = 13.3% chance of being a first round pick).

264 4* (6.06%)

1138 3* (0.88%)

I'm not going to do 2* because it's taking forever to scroll through 50 players at a time, but you get the idea.

Personally, percentages are more important than simply using number of players for each ranking. Conclusion from all this is yes, there's ample proof 3*s can be coached up to be great players (I know great college player doesn't necessarily mean top draft pick, but I couldn't think of a better measure.), but chances are better as ranking increases.

Exactly my point in my above post. Thanks for verifying it statistically Tivo.

[Tivo48 31]

Here's a list of the top 32 draft prospects for this year with their star rating coming out of HS for anyone interested:

http://247sports.com...spects-28361765

By my count:

4 5*s

16 4*s

10 3*s

2 2*s

EDIT: Another important thing to look at though, is the number of recruits at each ranking. Using the 2011 composite class (just had to pick one), there were:

30 5*s (4/30 = 13.3% chance of being a first round pick).

264 4* (6.06%)

1138 3* (0.88%)

I'm not going to do 2* because it's taking forever to scroll through 50 players at a time, but you get the idea.

Personally, percentages are more important than simply using number of players for each ranking. Conclusion from all this is yes, there's ample proof 3*s can be coached up to be great players (I know great college player doesn't necessarily mean top draft pick, but I couldn't think of a better measure.), but chances are better as ranking increases.

Exactly my point in my above post. Thanks for verifying it statistically Tivo.

Not a problem. I know we've had this debate a bunch, just figured I'd put some numbers to it.

[FHeal 4]

Just throwing this out here because it sort of fits,

... but another benefit besides coaching is the level of play to which you are exposed. Lower ranked players benefit from their exposure and time spent with better talent. And our having enough 4'stars and a couple 5's will elevate the play of everyone around them. Not just from having to earn a spot, so called direct head to head comp, but from seeing their work ethic and watching their how to succeed. Of course being able to spot unnoticed (or touted) talent is a coaching skill unto itself.

[Dixie1860 27]

I was talking to someone about this recently. It is important to have highly skilled guys at certain positions in order to win. But as I think we are seeing at Bama, much like USCw prior to them, you CAN have too many 5*'s, and a sense of entitlement can creep in. I don't care really where we rank class wise as long as we are around Top 5. At that point it comes down to evaluation and coaching. And IMO, biased as it is, we have coaches capable of both all over the staff. More so than our competition IYAM. Our staff is still "new" so to speak, and that is why we have had to play catch-up to other staffs with 2014/2015 kids. Well catch-up has become caught-up in most cases, and I think we could be in for a Monster 2016 class.

[Newbomb 193]

I want us to continue to find the Carl Lawson types of players who are highly rated but continue to work hard to improve everyday. IMHO that is the biggest skill in recruiting finding the "coachable kids".

[mustache eagle 2,397]

A slightly different angle and one of the issues I have with the recruiting evaluations. I'm an auburn fan. I want great college players not great pro players. Yes, yes I understand the recruiting angle and correlation.

I hope they all have great professional careers, but I don't limit that to the nfl. The nfl is a tiny window for the few. I want these guys to be educated so they can have careers in a rewarding field after football.

I hate that evaluations are influenced by nfl stereotypical measurables. Carl Lawson, for example, probably would have been the consensus #1 overall recruit if he was 2"-3" taller out of high school. I think that is silly since they have to go through 3 years of college before those nfl measurables really matter.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I was talking to someone about this recently. It is important to have highly skilled guys at certain positions in order to win. But as I think we are seeing at Bama, much like USCw prior to them, you CAN have too many 5*'s, and a sense of entitlement can creep in. I don't care really where we rank class wise as long as we are around Top 5. At that point it comes down to evaluation and coaching. And IMO, biased as it is, we have coaches capable of both all over the staff. More so than our competition IYAM. Our staff is still "new" so to speak, and that is why we have had to play catch-up to other staffs with 2014/2015 kids. Well catch-up has become caught-up in most cases, and I think we could be in for a Monster 2016 class.

1) Talent doesn't bring a sense of entitlement. Winning does.

2) USCw went 7 straight years of winning the PAC10, appearing in a BCS bowl and finishing in the top 4. Nick Saban has 7 years at Alabama under his belt, and he's won 10 games or more in 6 of them, including 3 national championships. "Too many 5*s"? With all due respect, I damn sure hope that Auburn gets talented and entitled enough to go 11-2 and call it a bad year.

[Ronin 2]

I was talking to someone about this recently. It is important to have highly skilled guys at certain positions in order to win. But as I think we are seeing at Bama, much like USCw prior to them, you CAN have too many 5*'s, and a sense of entitlement can creep in. I don't care really where we rank class wise as long as we are around Top 5. At that point it comes down to evaluation and coaching. And IMO, biased as it is, we have coaches capable of both all over the staff. More so than our competition IYAM. Our staff is still "new" so to speak, and that is why we have had to play catch-up to other staffs with 2014/2015 kids. Well catch-up has become caught-up in most cases, and I think we could be in for a Monster 2016 class.

1) Talent doesn't bring a sense of entitlement. Winning does.

2) USCw went 7 straight years of winning the PAC10, appearing in a BCS bowl and finishing in the top 4. Nick Saban has 7 years at Alabama under his belt, and he's won 10 games or more in 6 of them, including 3 national championships. "Too many 5*s"? With all due respect, I damn sure hope that Auburn gets talented and entitled enough to go 11-2 and call it a bad year.

On top of that, if USCw hadn't been caught cheating and if Pete Carroll were still there, who knows how their program would be holding up now.

[ellitor 33,078]

I was talking to someone about this recently. It is important to have highly skilled guys at certain positions in order to win. But as I think we are seeing at Bama, much like USCw prior to them, you CAN have too many 5*'s, and a sense of entitlement can creep in. I don't care really where we rank class wise as long as we are around Top 5. At that point it comes down to evaluation and coaching. And IMO, biased as it is, we have coaches capable of both all over the staff. More so than our competition IYAM. Our staff is still "new" so to speak, and that is why we have had to play catch-up to other staffs with 2014/2015 kids. Well catch-up has become caught-up in most cases, and I think we could be in for a Monster 2016 class.

While there has been and likely always will be entitlement with Bama fans. I doubt that sentiment is in Saban or the football players there. You don't win 3 natties in a 4 year span with that mind set. You earn it.

[CadillacCone 0]

We're #2 on ESPN's rankings now.

[CadillacCone 0]

We're #2 on ESPN's rankings now.

[ellitor 33,078]

We're #2 on ESPN's rankings now.

Wow! Did not see that one coming. And they still have not rated 4 of our commits.

[ellitor 33,078]

We're #2 on ESPN's rankings now.

Wow! Did not see that one coming. And they still have not rated 4 of our commits.