ESPN Re-Ranks The 2007 Recruiting Classes

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Most people agree that the proof of recruiting comes 3-4 years down the road. The new ranking of the 2007 class sure reflects this. Auburn has moved up to #3, reflecting the sucess this year of may kids from that class. This clearly refutes those who say Tubs was doing a lousy job recruiting at the end and that he left the cupboard bare.

http://auburn.247sports.com/Board/42/ESPN-Re-ranks-the-2007-recruiting-classes-959007/1#a959073

[RunInRed 18,161]

That's pretty interesting.

[TitanTiger 21,100]

I wonder how they came to that conclusion? Because when you look at that class, it did produce a great O-line and a few other players but look at how this breaks down:

30 signed

8 of them never enrolled because of grade issues (26.7%)

another 7 of them were either kicked off or transferred within a year or two (23.3%)

3 went on medical redshirt, one of which never played a down (10%)

That only leaves 12 guys from a class of 30 (40%) that made it past the first year or two. And that's counting Fairley even though he had to go JUCO and the new staff resigned him. Granted, the 12 that stuck ended up being starters for most of their careers or significant contributors. But that doesn't strike me as a Top 3 class.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

The class included Pugh, Ziemba, Burns, Bynes, Byrum, Carr, A. Carter, A.J. Green, and Mike McNeil as major contributors during CTTs time at Auburn. Throw in Freeman and Fairley as JUCO guys that year that made it back to Auburn. Chaz Ramsey would have been a major contributor if not for the fiasco.

You have to consider that an impressive list of players that had an impact. But the thing that hurt Auburn in CTT's last few recruiting classes here was the attrition. Out of a class of 30 signees in 2007, 12 (I'll count Ramsey) made a significant contribution on gamedays during their time on The Plains. Everyone else either washed out or never made it to Auburn. Thats around 40% success of signees that even remain at the school for 4 years.

I've never complained about CTTs recuiting, but the attrition is what hurt us in 2008 and 2009.

EDIT - Apparently Titan was thinking around the same lines. He types faster...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I wonder how they came to that conclusion? Because when you look at that class, it did produce a great O-line and a few other players but look at how this breaks down:

30 signed

8 of them never enrolled because of grade issues (26.7%)

another 7 of them were either kicked off or transferred within a year or two (23.3%)

3 went on medical redshirt, one of which never played a down (10%)

That only leaves 12 guys from a class of 30 (40%) that made it past the first year or two. And that's counting Fairley even though he had to go JUCO and the new staff resigned him. Granted, the 12 that stuck ended up being starters for most of their careers or significant contributors. But that doesn't strike me as a Top 3 class.

I don't know what ESPN's criteria were but you would have to compare Auburn's class and it's attrition to that of the other top ranked teams. Maybe they had a comparable degree of attrition too.

[TitanTiger 21,100]

I don't think it's that shocking to have a significant amount of guys not make it to their senior seasons. I do think it's shocking to have over 1/4 of your class never even enroll and to lose almost that many in year one or two. That's half your signing class gone after two seasons. I just don't see how you can build any depth that way...which is what our main problem was when Chizik arrived. We had some talent on the 1st string but precious little depth behind them.

And what really killed us was that the 2008 class wasn't much better. Out of 29 signees, 15 of them either never enrolled or never played a down and were gone within a year. Back to back classes with that much attrition leaves a team severely depleted, no matter how good the ones that stuck ended up being.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I don't think it's that shocking to have a significant amount of guys not make it to their senior seasons. I do think it's shocking to have over 1/4 of your class never even enroll and to lose almost that many in year one or two. That's half your signing class gone after two seasons. I just don't see how you can build any depth that way...which is what our main problem was when Chizik arrived. We had some talent on the 1st string but precious little depth behind them.

I guess the bottomline is that if we hadn't had those that did come from the 2007 class, it's highly unlikely we would have won the NC this year.

[TitanTiger 21,100]

I don't think it's that shocking to have a significant amount of guys not make it to their senior seasons. I do think it's shocking to have over 1/4 of your class never even enroll and to lose almost that many in year one or two. That's half your signing class gone after two seasons. I just don't see how you can build any depth that way...which is what our main problem was when Chizik arrived. We had some talent on the 1st string but precious little depth behind them.

I guess the bottomline is that if we hadn't had those that did come from the 2007 class, it's highly unlikely we would have won the NC this year.

Granted. But again, to say that people are being overly critical when they point out the dire situation that faced Chizik with the terrible attrition rate in the preceded two signing classes isn't really accurate. We were fortunate, much like Bama last year, that we didn't have a lot of injuries especially at key positions. Because quality depth in multiple spots was dangerously thin.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I don't think it's that shocking to have a significant amount of guys not make it to their senior seasons. I do think it's shocking to have over 1/4 of your class never even enroll and to lose almost that many in year one or two. That's half your signing class gone after two seasons. I just don't see how you can build any depth that way...which is what our main problem was when Chizik arrived. We had some talent on the 1st string but precious little depth behind them.

I guess the bottomline is that if we hadn't had those that did come from the 2007 class, it's highly unlikely we would have won the NC this year.

Granted. But again, to say that people are being overly critical when they point out the dire situation that faced Chizik with the terrible attrition rate in the preceded two signing classes isn't really accurate. We were fortunate, much like Bama last year, that we didn't have a lot of injuries especially at key positions. Because quality depth in multiple spots was dangerously thin.

As is often the case, it's the end result that really matters. Everyone in the 2007 class could have remained and we might not have won the NC, Who knows?

[TitanTiger 21,100]

I don't think it's that shocking to have a significant amount of guys not make it to their senior seasons. I do think it's shocking to have over 1/4 of your class never even enroll and to lose almost that many in year one or two. That's half your signing class gone after two seasons. I just don't see how you can build any depth that way...which is what our main problem was when Chizik arrived. We had some talent on the 1st string but precious little depth behind them.

I guess the bottomline is that if we hadn't had those that did come from the 2007 class, it's highly unlikely we would have won the NC this year.

Granted. But again, to say that people are being overly critical when they point out the dire situation that faced Chizik with the terrible attrition rate in the preceded two signing classes isn't really accurate. We were fortunate, much like Bama last year, that we didn't have a lot of injuries especially at key positions. Because quality depth in multiple spots was dangerously thin.

As is often the case, it's the end result that really matters. Everyone in the 2007 class could have remained and we might not have won the NC, Who knows?

Again, I'm not disputing that. But I still find it hard to fathom that a class that only managed to keep 12 of 30 past year two is ranked third in the country. And to point out that such abnormally high rates of attrition two years in a row put us in a precarious situation is not being unfair to xCTT.

[banditmwp 713]

It's easy to re-rank the class with the glare of the Crystal Football throwing light on it. The class suffered a high attrition rate and IMO is nowhere near a top 5 recruiting class. Now, looking back, the recruits that made it through and contributed to this season (ESPECIALLY THE OL!!) were all top tier athletes, but on the whole as a class, we were probably somewhere top third.

Just my .02, but I think Titan and Valley see things the same way.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Whether the ESPN re-ranking is accurate or not I'll take it.

[Mikey 16,781]

What's with all the weeping over the 30 signees? Clue: When you signed 30, you knew damn well that at least 5 were sign to place guys. To say that "Gasp 27% didn't qualify" is disingenuous at best. Back before the 28 signee limit, which went into effect for the 2009 season, if you signed 35 you knew damn well that 10 wouldn't make it in.

Sign to place didn't cost a thing and it made some kids feel good on signing day, with a chance they'd remember you when/if they qualified later. Nick Fairly and Eltoro Freemen are two such players that worked out well for Auburn. Who cares if Auburn signed 50 and only 1/2 qualified? That would have been expected before they were ever signed.

[TitanTiger 21,100]

What's with all the weeping over the 30 signees? Clue: When you signed 30, you knew damn well that at least 5 were sign to place guys.

And what, we just signed a bonus three that didn't make it either? And isn't the point of sign and place to eventually get most of them back?

To say that "Gasp 27% didn't qualify" is disingenuous at best. Back before the 28 signee limit, which went into effect for the 2009 season, if you signed 35 you knew damn well that 10 wouldn't make it in.

True. However, do most schools expect to only have 12 guys from a signing class on the roster a year or two later?

Sign to place didn't cost a thing and it made some kids feel good on signing day, with a chance they'd remember you when/if they qualified later. Nick Fairly and Eltoro Freemen are two such players that worked out well for Auburn. Who cares if Auburn signed 50 and only 1/2 qualified? That would have been expected before they were ever signed.

If we'd signed 50 and only half qualified or stuck with the team, we wouldn't have been in the shape we were in when Chizik got here.

[TitanTiger 21,100]

By contrast, our 2009 class just went through it's 2nd season, so they've made it two years. In that class of 28, which was put together in the midst of a coaching change, 5 failed to qualify (17.8%). Two more transferred and another had medical problems forcing him to quit. Twenty of the twenty-eight signees were still on the active roster by season's end, including the re-signing of Fairley (71.4%). To get to the kinds of attrition the 2007 class saw we'd have to have 8 or 9 guys from this class leave by the summer roughly. I don't see that happening.

In summary: Attrition is normal. Sign and place is normal. The combo of those two things should not leave you with only 40% of your class still on the roster one or two years later.

[Mikey 16,781]

Fine. Just don't start off by saying that it a travesty that only 73% qualified when everybody understood before hand that a certain number were signed knowing they weren't going to qualify. It appears that we'll sign at least 27 this year, which is smart. Will it be horrible because 8% won't enter school this fall? We know right now that only 25 can enroll.

[TitanTiger 21,100]

Fine. Just don't start off by saying that it a travesty that only 73% qualified when everybody understood before hand that a certain number were signed knowing they weren't going to qualify. It appears that we'll sign at least 27 this year, which is smart. Will it be horrible because 8% won't enter school this fall? We know right now that only 25 can enroll.

But again, contrast the difference. In 2009, a full 10% less failed to qualify. In 2010, out of 32 signees, only one didn't qualify and another (Shon Coleman) didn't enroll due to his cancer situation. That is a stark contrast to how things went the preceding two classes. Not to mention the other attrition that happened apart from grades that doesn't seem to be occurring with equal frequency now. That makes a HUGE difference down the road. You just cannot sit there and remain credible while trying to explain away what happened to the 2007 and 2008 signing classes as normal or not a big deal.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

The class could credibly be called a Top Three class because it produced studs. Not just starters. It produced a LOT of guys that played key roles for multiple years then culminated in a championship. A normal recruiting class gives you maybe 8-10 guys that contribute. If you're telling me we had 10 starters on a championship team with multiple All-Conference selections and a couple All-American selections, you NAILED that class. That class is a home run.

On the other hand, it's undeniable that we had an attrition problem toward the end. Some of it was just really bad injury luck: Chaz Ramsey, Spencer Pybus, PPL, etc. Some of it was grades. But it was a problem.

I agree with Titan that you have to admit depth was an issue if you want any credibility. I also agree with Mikey that acting like Chizik walked into a pit lacks all credibility. We had a LOT of front line talent from Tuberville. We lacked depth. When he hit, he hit it a long way. The problem was that he missed more in the last few years. That left us with a lot of great starters that had little or nothing behind them. Tuberville left this place WORLDS better than he found it. Chizik walked into a plush situation. All he needed to do was find guys that could contribute in the second team and special teams and viola! He had an SEC Championship caliber team. He pushed it to another level by finding Cam and signing Mike Dyer.

The funny thing is, for all the complaining about Tubs' recruiting. We're still going to see a lot of his guys on the field next year, three years removed from him being here (Mike McNeil, Neiko Thorpe, T'Sharvan Bell, Eltoro Freeman, Jared Cooper, AJ Greene, Barrett Trotter, and Eric Smith will all start next year. Derrick Lykes likely will factor into the DT rotation, and Carr may get added PT at receiver). The point is he didn't leave us devoid of talent. But we were absolutely thin at certain positions.

The 2007 class has to be considered a great signing class because there were so many guys that hit BIG and contributed for multiple seasons. Just look at this list: Burns, Bynes, Byrum, Carter, Fairley, Freeman, McNeil, Pugh, Ramsey, and Ziemba. Then keep in mind guys that will contribute next year: Carr, Cooper, and Greene. That's a great class no matter how you measure it.

[WarEagle84 0]

I'm glad to see they did that. Have I just had my head in the sand, or is this the first time they've done something like this?

I wonder how they came to that conclusion?

I wondered the same thing. There's no explanation on the website of how it was calculated, but then neither is there an explanation for their current rankings. I couldn't find anything on Rivals public side about how they calculate their rankings, but they do list a point total, so presumably they have a formula. Scout reveals their formula to anyone who wants to see it. Of course there's some irony to using an objective formula that's based on subjective player rankings, but this whole business is subjective, which is why I've long been interested in after-the-fact recruiting reviews. I would think that could be made much less subjective.

[Ronin 2]

It is only a change of 4 spots, we were ranked #7. I want the best players possible but even retrospectively, I'm not sure the difference between 4 and 7 matters. I also wonder whether they are taking into consideration ALL the players from the 2007 class that ended up playing for Auburn. If so, that would include Cam which might improve a class 4 spots and who x-CTT had nothing to do with.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

By contrast, our 2009 class just went through it's 2nd season, so they've made it two years. In that class of 28, which was put together in the midst of a coaching change, 5 failed to qualify (17.8%). Two more transferred and another had medical problems forcing him to quit. Twenty of the twenty-eight signees were still on the active roster by season's end, including the re-signing of Fairley (71.4%). To get to the kinds of attrition the 2007 class saw we'd have to have 8 or 9 guys from this class leave by the summer roughly. I don't see that happening.

In summary: Attrition is normal. Sign and place is normal. The combo of those two things should not leave you with only 40% of your class still on the roster one or two years later.

It depends. If that 40% comprises a majority portion of your NC team starters, that's a good thing.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It is only a change of 4 spots, we were ranked #7. I want the best players possible but even retrospectively, I'm not sure the difference between 4 and 7 matters. I also wonder whether they are taking into consideration ALL the players from the 2007 class that ended up playing for Auburn. If so, that would include Cam which might improve a class 4 spots and who x-CTT had nothing to do with.

How could Cam be included in our 2007 class?

[Mikey 16,781]

Fine. Just don't start off by saying that it a travesty that only 73% qualified when everybody understood before hand that a certain number were signed knowing they weren't going to qualify. It appears that we'll sign at least 27 this year, which is smart. Will it be horrible because 8% won't enter school this fall? We know right now that only 25 can enroll.

But again, contrast the difference. In 2009, a full 10% less failed to qualify. In 2010, out of 32 signees, only one didn't qualify and another (Shon Coleman) didn't enroll due to his cancer situation. That is a stark contrast to how things went the preceding two classes. Not to mention the other attrition that happened apart from grades that doesn't seem to be occurring with equal frequency now. That makes a HUGE difference down the road. You just cannot sit there and remain credible while trying to explain away what happened to the 2007 and 2008 signing classes as normal or not a big deal.

Of course the results changed for 2009 and later years. 2009 is when the 28 signee limit went in for the SEC. That effectively put an end to "sign to place" practices. Comparing 2008 and prior years to '09 and subsequent years is apples to oranges.

[WarEagle84 0]

It is only a change of 4 spots, we were ranked #7. I want the best players possible but even retrospectively, I'm not sure the difference between 4 and 7 matters. I also wonder whether they are taking into consideration ALL the players from the 2007 class that ended up playing for Auburn. If so, that would include Cam which might improve a class 4 spots and who x-CTT had nothing to do with.

How could Cam be included in our 2007 class?

Exactly. Cam was a 2009 recruit to Auburn. There is no logic by which you could count him as part of our '07 class.

[Ronin 2]

It is only a change of 4 spots, we were ranked #7. I want the best players possible but even retrospectively, I'm not sure the difference between 4 and 7 matters. I also wonder whether they are taking into consideration ALL the players from the 2007 class that ended up playing for Auburn. If so, that would include Cam which might improve a class 4 spots and who x-CTT had nothing to do with.

How could Cam be included in our 2007 class?

Exactly. Cam was a 2009 recruit to Auburn. There is no logic by which you could count him as part of our '07 class.

Oh yeah. ESPN has been wrong all year but this time they got it right.....