All things rankings

[BornAU76 397]

E...I know it's been asked and answered probably a 1000x, but how many will we take this year?

Projection is 23-25.

Thank you...the 247 calculator is pretty cool!

[Charleston Tiger 134]

Quick question - when is NSD for 2014? I need to put in PTO for the first two months of next year, and I always take the day off.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

Quick question - when is NSD for 2014? I need to put in PTO for the first two months of next year, and I always take the day off.

Right off Google:

Wednesday, February 5

National Signing Day 2014

[ellitor 33,076]

Quick question - when is NSD for 2014? I need to put in PTO for the first two months of next year, and I always take the day off.

Wednesday, February 5

[Charleston Tiger 134]

Quick question - when is NSD for 2014? I need to put in PTO for the first two months of next year, and I always take the day off.

Right off Google:

Wednesday, February 5

National Signing Day 2014

Touche. For a question that simple I'm shocked no one hit me with a www.lmgtfy.com link haha

[Dixie1860 27]

I'm not sure I understand this.

It's a way to play "make believe" when you're bored and have nothing else to do. I may even give it a try on some cold, blustry January day when outdoors activities aren't practical.

Agreed Mikey! Maybe after an Old Forrester or three? (Just to stay warm of course! )

[au_bsci_04 407]

NSD is always the first Wednesday in February, btw...

[au75 75]

Glad that has been settled. Thanks

[Mikey 16,565]

Gee, I hope we don't sign some sorry player like Dee Ford, Ryan Smith or Chris Davis. That will blow our ranking all to hell... Ok guys, just havin' fun.

I think we'll sign 25 to 27 unless we can't get the quality we're looking for but I'm in the minority on that right now. However, things are trending my way. Last time there was a question about this the consensus was "23. Period!" So 23-25 is definitely moving in my direction.

Everybody should understand that recruiting is fluid through signing day, so the best thing to do about numbers is step back and look at the roster. We need warm bodies. Signing fewer than 25 doesn't make sense. (we could go as high as 28)

[ellitor 33,076]

Gee, I hope we don't sign some sorry player like Dee Ford, Ryan Smith or Chris Davis. That will blow our ranking all to hell... Ok guys, just havin' fun.

I think we'll sign 25 to 27 unless we can't get the quality we're looking for but I'm in the minority on that right now. However, things are trending my way. Last time there was a question about this the consensus was "23. Period!" So 23-25 is definitely moving in my direction.

Everybody should understand that recruiting is fluid through signing day, so the best thing to do about numbers is step back and look at the roster. We need warm bodies. Signing fewer than 25 doesn't make sense. (we could go as high as 28)

The projection from the staff has always been 23-25. That has not changed. You are right though. Recruiting is fluid and with more recruits showing interest the number can grow. I was the one saying a hard 23 because at the time I wanted to have extra spots for next years class to absorb the 25 then seniors we will lose. I have since changed on that. If they're quality I say in in my best redneck voice, get' em on in heoor!!

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

Gee, I hope we don't sign some sorry player like Dee Ford, Ryan Smith or Chris Davis. That will blow our ranking all to hell... Ok guys, just havin' fun.

I think we'll sign 25 to 27 unless we can't get the quality we're looking for but I'm in the minority on that right now. However, things are trending my way. Last time there was a question about this the consensus was "23. Period!" So 23-25 is definitely moving in my direction.

Everybody should understand that recruiting is fluid through signing day, so the best thing to do about numbers is step back and look at the roster. We need warm bodies. Signing fewer than 25 doesn't make sense. (we could go as high as 28)

The projection from the staff has always been 23-25. That has not changed. You are right though. Recruiting is fluid and with more recruits showing interest the number can grow. I was the one saying a hard 23 because at the time I wanted to have extra spots for next years class to absorb the 25 then seniors we will lose. I have since changed on that. If they're quality I say in in my best redneck voice, get' em on in heoor!!

We've been over this umpteen times. If you insist on looking at this in a 2 year window as long as we sign the max number of players in this two class period (3+25+25), the amount of seniors this year or next is unimportant; Auburn will need 10 players lost to attrition (NFL or otherwise) to be under the 85 limit (again in a 2 year window).

If we sign 25 in this class, then we'll need to see 6 players gone from attrition before August 1. Mikey's research says attrition average is 7 to 9 per year.

If we signed max (28) in this class, we'd have to lose 9 players before August 1 which is plausible but not responsible considering the next cycle. 10-9=1, meaning we'd likely not be as close as possible to the 85 limit in 2015 considering average attrition.

Now that's a lot of verbiage, but fact is that we are all basically in agreement. So let's just give the 23-25 number and link to one of these many debates next time someone asks the number, please.

[Dixie1860 27]

"So let's just give the 23-25 number and link to one of these many debates next time someone asks the number, please."

(insert Gif of cat scratch with said cat saying "Rroowll") or "Ouick, someone get Aretha here a Snickers!"

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

"So let's just give the 23-25 number and link to one of these many debates next time someone asks the number, please."

(insert Gif of cat scratch with said cat saying "Rroowll") or "Ouick, someone get Aretha here a Snickers!"

[Dixie1860 27]

Straight to the moon Alice! One of these days....

[C'viewTiger 242]

Straight to the moon Alice! One of these days....

Dixie, I thought the same thing. "one of these days"

[IronMan70 3,277]

"So let's just give the 23-25 number and link to one of these many debates next time someone asks the number, please."

(insert Gif of cat scratch with said cat saying "Rroowll") or "Ouick, someone get Aretha here a Snickers!"

I vote for just using the 25 number every year and then we let the pluses and minuses, the ins and outs, the ups and downs, the bada bings and bada booms, the yings and yangs, the lefts and rights all work themselves out at the very end.

[Mikey 16,565]

"So let's just give the 23-25 number and link to one of these many debates next time someone asks the number, please."

(insert Gif of cat scratch with said cat saying "Rroowll") or "Ouick, someone get Aretha here a Snickers!"

I vote for just using the 25 number every year and then we let the pluses and minuses, the ins and outs, the ups and downs, the bada bings and bada booms, the yings and yangs, the lefts and rights all work themselves out at the very end.

That would work except: We have some among us that always come out with "OMG we'll only be able to sign 15 guys in 2016!!!" They never account for the number that will turn pro early, get kicked off, flunk out or transfer to Jax State for playing time.

Your point is very accurate, most years we'll sign 25, give or take a couple.

[ellitor 33,076]

That would work except: We have some among us that always come out with "OMG we'll only be able to sign 15 guys in 2016!!!" They never account for the number that will turn pro early, get kicked off, flunk out or transfer to Jax State for playing time.

Your point is very accurate, most years we'll sign 25, give or take a couple.

There is rarely an OMG reaction like that. It's hard to project future classes so all a person can say in reply is as of today we can enroll xx number but that will grow with attririon. That question does get asked a bit though. FWIW I expect we will sign the max in 2015 whatever that # will be.

[Mikey 16,565]

That would work except: We have some among us that always come out with "OMG we'll only be able to sign 15 guys in 2016!!!" They never account for the number that will turn pro early, get kicked off, flunk out or transfer to Jax State for playing time.

Your point is very accurate, most years we'll sign 25, give or take a couple.

There is rarely an OMG reaction like that. It's hard to project future classes so all a person can say in reply is as of today we can enroll xx number but that will grow with attririon. That question does get asked a bit though. FWIW I expect we will sign the max in 2015 whatever that # will be.

I see that reaction quite a bit, actually. Not from you, but it's common.

[Dixie1860 27]

Oh my God! Mikey is screwing up roster#'s again! We will only be able to sign 3 in 2020!

[Mikey 16,565]

Oh my God! Mikey is screwing up roster#'s again! We will only be able to sign 3 in 2020!

Hey, it's what I do.

[ellitor 33,076]

That would work except: We have some among us that always come out with "OMG we'll only be able to sign 15 guys in 2016!!!" They never account for the number that will turn pro early, get kicked off, flunk out or transfer to Jax State for playing time.

Your point is very accurate, most years we'll sign 25, give or take a couple.

There is rarely an OMG reaction like that. It's hard to project future classes so all a person can say in reply is as of today we can enroll xx number but that will grow with attririon. That question does get asked a bit though. FWIW I expect we will sign the max in 2015 whatever that # will be.

I see that reaction quite a bit, actually. Not from you, but it's common.

cool

[aupops2 8]

I just did a practice on the calculator: added Evans, Lambert, Bessent, Prestwood, , and Russell and came up with a 275+ score which would put us a strong #2, ahead of utk even with the Josh Malone commit. I then deducted D, Williams (no inside info, just wanted to see) and I think I came up with around 267 (E, i could be wrong here, but not by much), which would still leave us at #2 or #3. Pretty neat huh? If the Ricky Parks info is correct, and I strongly believe it is, it could affect Prestwood although it shouldn't ( TE vs. H-back). The net effect, depending on if Ricky comes in as a 2013 commit or a pre-ferred walk-on, would be negligible. If you add A. Williams, it will look even better. All six of these kids are REAL possibilities for this class.

[AuburnNTexas 7,133]

While I am not a great believer in stars alone like most I want to see Auburn ranked very highly when it comes to recruiting. Today I was looking and something didn't make sense to me.

Clemson is rated number 11 and Auburn is rated number 12. What is confusing is we both have 18 players so far with the average Star rating for Auburn at 3.67 and for Clemson at 3.39. We have 3 5* they have 1 5* we have 7 4* and they have 6 4* we have 7 3* they have 10 3* each has 1 2*.

By comparing Clemson's class and Auburn's class I know we have a superior class yet the rankings are kind of telling a different story.

It seems obvious we should be ranked higher, but the difference seems to be because we have more JUCO players. As we have seen JUCO players are often better then HS players (Cam, Nick Fairly, NM). Since JUCO players have already played at the collegiate level and are better known quantities then HS players why do the ranking services seem not to be able to find some way of giving bonus points to JUCO players like they do to HS players.

[ellitor 33,076]

As we have seen JUCO players are often better then HS players (Cam, Nick Fairly, NM). Since JUCO players have already played at the collegiate level and are better known quantities then HS players why do the ranking services seem not to be able to find some way of giving bonus points to JUCO players like they do to HS players.

Your premise about them being often better is incorrect. There are some cases as you pointed out where they are better but the norm is they are not. We have had many, many juco guys not pan out including 5* juco such as Raven Gray and another guy last name mith about 6 to 8 years ago.

As for their value, as evidenced by the paragraph above plus they are usually not at a school more than 2 years as opposed yo high school recruits having 3 to 4 years to impact a team's succes, IMO they are correctly not given bonus points.