Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

[cajun4life]

Absolutely. He's brought in way more guys that I'm excited about than I could have imagined. However, the true depth of how good this class is/will be will only be known in a year or two. I still caution those who think this is the best class we've ever had and such until these players have a chance to come in, work hard and contribute. However, there are a LOT of guys coming in that I'm truly pumped up about and think could be big time players for us.

I have to disagree, recruiting classes are judged by potential. They are ranked based off of potential, and if we are able to sign all of these kids it will be the best recruiting class we have ever signed.




igeaux.mobi

[Just1More]

_ Absolutely. He's brought in way more guys that I'm excited about than I could have imagined. However, the true depth of how good this class is/will be will only be known in a year or two. I still caution those who think this is the best class we've ever had and such until these players have a chance to come in, work hard and contribute. However, there are a LOT of guys coming in that I'm truly pumped up about and think could be big time players for us. _

I have to agree with C4L. The class is only bundled as a recruiting class "right now". They/we are evaluated based on their potential as a class. You really cannot judge a class on future results of the program. Too many factors start diluting the outcomes as time passes. There is nothing wrong with taking a critical look at our recruits and the recruiting class. If we look close and consider who these young men are, what other opportunities they were given, and the effort it took to successfully get them to sign (commit) with us... you can evaluate the class. I agree with C4L... from looking back to the entire body of recruiting work in the Bustle years... for instance... this is perhaps... if they all sign... the best "class" of recruits I've ever seen at UL. What we and they do after that... is another matter entirely.

[zephyr]

_ I have to disagree, recruiting classes are judged by potential. They are ranked based off of potential, and if we are able to sign all of these kids it will be the best recruiting class we have ever signed.




igeaux.mobi _

I can't disagree with you more. About a month ago, all I heard was how stupid the star system is and that it overlooks a large portion of the talented athletes in this country. Now you're telling me that our ranking is legitimate and based on potential? I think this is opposite. I think it is a flawed system that bases your ranking on points associated with the number of stars and average of stars across your class. Pittsburgh is ranked right before us along with Vanderbilt yet they carry many more higher profile players than we do. They also carry a lot less committments than we do which brings their total points lower.

Obviously, at this stage of the game, all we have is potential of players since none have seen the field or truly gotten eligible. However, these rankings are all based on "potential" of players that most of the people grading them have never seen them play.

If you say that this class has the "potential" to be our best, I completely agree because I'm very excited about the athletes that we are bringing in but I was commenting on the actual rankings process and how I feel it is very biased and not transparent of the actual talent levels that schools like UL bring in.

[zephyr]

_ I have to agree with C4L. The class is only bundled as a recruiting class "right now". They/we are evaluated based on their potential as a class. You really cannot judge a class on future results of the program. Too many factors start diluting the outcomes as time passes. There is nothing wrong with taking a critical look at our recruits and the recruiting class. If we look close and consider who these young men are, what other opportunities they were given, and the effort it took to successfully get them to sign (commit) with us... you can evaluate the class. I agree with C4L... from looking back to the entire body of recruiting work in the Bustle years... for instance... this is perhaps... if they all sign... the best "class" of recruits I've ever seen at UL. What we and they do after that... is another matter entirely. _

Didn't I say this??

[cajun4life]

_ I can't disagree with you more. About a month ago, all I heard was how stupid the star system is and that it overlooks a large portion of the talented athletes in this country. Now you're telling me that our ranking is legitimate and based on potential? I think this is opposite. I think it is a flawed system that bases your ranking on points associated with the number of stars and average of stars across your class. Pittsburgh is ranked right before us along with Vanderbilt yet they carry many more higher profile players than we do. They also carry a lot less committments than we do which brings their total points lower.

Obviously, at this stage of the game, all we have is potential of players since none have seen the field or truly gotten eligible. However, these rankings are all based on "potential" of players that most of the people grading them have never seen them play.

If you say that this class has the "potential" to be our best, I completely agree because I'm very excited about the athletes that we are bringing in but I was commenting on the actual rankings process and how I feel it is very biased and not transparent of the actual talent levels that schools like UL bring in. _

120 FBS programs, sign roughly 25 players each and every year. That is 3000 athletes each year. There is not enough time to properly evaluate every player. You see the major programs recruits are always evaluated and rated higher because of the money that program brings into that website.
If the Cajun Redzone had 500 premium members or so, then you would see UL with more kids getting evaluated due to the money being brought into the site.

The system used to rate kids are fairly accurate predictors of success on the next level. The biased coverage is what is flawed in the system not the ratings of players.

[Policarp]

I beleive you are correct.....transfers don't count. Aces in the whole for final rankings include Qyen Griffin, 1st/2nd team all american and total bad arse that has no scout stars. Easily 4 star IMO. Chris Ringo is 1st team All Miss (all classifications) by scout writers.....not rated on scout. Most of these 1st team All Miss guys are 3 stars and up. Effrum Reed? Top offensive player in BR metro area, not ranked? Plus any super secret signings.....don't know what they bring in star rankings until signed. Plus this weekend, Hamilton and Liggins both 3 star on rivals.

PP #2

[Just1More]

_ Didn't I say this?? _

I took you to mean that the ranking of this class versus prior UL classes is meaningless until they prove it when they get intertwined in our program. I disagree with that. I do believe we can evaluate, our own evaluation of each athlete, and make an assessment of the class. The 3 star guys we are getting are clearly defined 3 star athletes. I am also extremely stoked about each individual we've recruited. They are not diamonds in the rough, hidden from everyone else's view, as we have to claim almost every year. Collectively, this is a better class than we saw under Bustle IMO. Not proven... we are talking "recruits".

It wasn't too many years ago we had a headliner recruit, under Bustle, choose a different school on signing day. It just about took the air out of signing day for many UL faithful. Right now, we have 8 to 10 headliners equal to that athlete... and we have a couple of class headliners expected to sign that aren't even on our public list.

Unlike others... I'm still not big on the scout/rival star system when it gets past the 50th program. The programs themselves are way too influential into the recruit's final "stars". And, many schools have too much preferred attention by these sites and it skews the outcome.

[Turbine]

Two startups going after their very first class . . .

Let's say school (a) only signs 10 players but signs all 5 stars. That is 50 stars.

Let's say school (b) signs 24 and signs all 2 stars. That is 48 stars.

Who signed the better class?

One school can field an entire team, the other can't even fill one side of the ball.

Sometimes need trumps stars.
igeaux.mobi

[Policarp]

there is a point system to the stars (not net stars) plus national ranking that makes a HUGE difference in rankings.

5 star 200 pts
4 star 120
3 star 40
2 star 20

Plus points for national ranking......#1 ranked gets 100 more points; #2 99 pts etc etc.

We move up big time in rankings if Qyen Griffin and others that are highly regarded athletes gets what is deserved....Qyen earned his 4 or 5 stars and the high ranking points that one would expect for 1st/2nd team all-american. This happens and we fly well past Tech and all their Juco 3 stars.

PP #2

[zephyr]

_ 120 FBS programs, sign roughly 25 players each and every year. That is 3000 athletes each year. There is not enough time to properly evaluate every player. You see the major programs recruits are always evaluated and rated higher because of the money that program brings into that website.
If the Cajun Redzone had 500 premium members or so, then you would see UL with more kids getting evaluated due to the money being brought into the site.

The system used to rate kids are fairly accurate predictors of success on the next level. The biased coverage is what is flawed in the system not the ratings of players. _

So, a Bakari Hollier, Micah Eugene or Quen Griffen (who was unrated weeks ago) can go until several weeks back with no rating and all of a sudden are 3 star athletes? They have not been evaluated prior to this but now they are 3 star recruits? The whole system is flawed and that includes the ratings when many players like Marcus Jackson or Qyen Griffen are listed at different positions than what they will play.

[zephyr]

_ I took you to mean that the ranking of this class versus prior UL classes is meaningless until they prove it when they get intertwined in our program. I disagree with that. I do believe we can evaluate, our own evaluation of each athlete, and make an assessment of the class. The 3 star guys we are getting are clearly defined 3 star athletes. I am also extremely stoked about each individual we've recruited. They are not diamonds in the rough, hidden from everyone else's view, as we have to claim almost every year. Collectively, this is a better class than we saw under Bustle IMO. Not proven... we are talking "recruits".

It wasn't too many years ago we had a headliner recruit, under Bustle, choose a different school on signing day. It just about took the air out of signing day for many UL faithful. Right now, we have 8 to 10 headliners equal to that athlete... and we have a couple of class headliners expected to sign that aren't even on our public list.

Unlike others... I'm still not big on the scout/rival star system when it gets past the 50th program. The programs themselves are way too influential into the recruit's final "stars". And, many schools have too much preferred attention by these sites and it skews the outcome. _

I agree that I believe that this class has a lot more potential than our previous classes but until they hit the field and work within the program, there is no way to rank them as the best class until they are able to prove it. There is no such thing as a sure thing in recruiting.

[wcd35]

There are bigger, stronger and faster athletes though. I understand wanting to hedge your bets but these are the best athletes we've recruited in decades.

Every time someone mentions how good this class is, someone has to pop up with this same statement. We get it. Recruits don't win on paper. Just let us enjoy this time of year
igeaux.mobi

[zephyr]

_ There are bigger, stronger and faster athletes though. I understand wanting to hedge your bets but these are the best athletes we've recruited in decades.

Every time someone mentions how good this class is, someone has to pop up with this same statement. We get it. Recruits don't win on paper. Just let us enjoy this time of year
igeaux.mobi _

LOL. As if I was holding you back

[Cajunmac]

The star system is flawed, no doubt, and it is a fun game to play with who as more stars than whom. For me, I believe this class to have greater potential I see us getting athletes who are choosing UL over programs like Tulsa, Memphis, and Houston. In the past this was not the case. And the fact that other programs want these kids tells me more about their value than a star system. It also tells me about where we are going as a program overall. We may have been competing for these athletes over the past 6-8 years, but we were not pulling them in, except for rarely, now they seem to be jumping in the boat!

[CajunEXPRESS]

_ 120 FBS programs, sign roughly 25 players each and every year. That is 3000 athletes each year. There is not enough time to properly evaluate every player. You see the major programs recruits are always evaluated and rated higher because of the money that program brings into that website.
If the Cajun Redzone had 500 premium members or so, then you would see UL with more kids getting evaluated due to the money being brought into the site.

The system used to rate kids are fairly accurate predictors of success on the next level. The biased coverage is what is flawed in the system not the ratings of players. _

C4L, you are only partially correct. I do not think there is an absolute. We have indeed seen kids who sign with a known school get their stars raised, and visa versa. Still the kid from Shrevesport for LSU was a two star, stayed a two star and played a vital part in their their national championship run, and doing a journeymans job for the Bolts in San Diago.

I have always maintained that the stars are indeed based on who is recruiting these kids to some degree, but the kids did what it takes to have themselves recruited at whatever level they are recruited. Now if you ask anybody without a personal bias they would probably say a school with several four star, and three star kids will probably out perform schools with one, and two star kids. Clearly there are deviations left and right but over three thousand recruits I think the stars bare out over time.