Jump to content

Re-Ranking the 2016 Class


tneun89
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Athletic had a really interesting article today on the 2016 recruiting class and player development. It analyzed each school's 2016 recruiting class in terms of player contribution and hit rate.

 

Point System

 

5 Points: All-American, award winner, Top 50 NFL draft pick

4 Points: Multi-year starter, all-conference honors

3 Points: One-year starter, key backup

2 Points: Career backup

0 Points: Left program/no contribution

 

Rankings

 

1. Clemson: 3.68 average, 96% hit rate

2. Alabama: 3.48 average, 73% hit rate

3. Florida: 3.19 average, 89% hit rate

4. Notre Dame: 3.07 average, 78% hit rate

5. Georgia: 3.07 average, 75% hit rate

6. Michigan: 3.06 average, 72% hit rate

7. Minnesota: 3.04 average, 88% hit rate

8. Ohio State: 3.01 average, 68% hit rate

9. Utah: 2.97 average, 81% hit rate

10. Washington: 2.95 average, 80% hit rate

 

Other notable teams: LSU (11), Penn State (14), Oklahoma (18 ), and Stanford (23).

 

Notre Dame's 2016 recruiting class was ranked 15th. The article said that 9 members were multi-year starters, and that there were only 4 misses. Key Players: Julian Love, Chase Claypool, Khalid Kareem, Julian Okwara, Ian Book.

 

https://theathletic.com/1578377/2020/02/03/recruiting-revisited-class-of-2016-rankings/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Athletic had a really interesting article today on the 2016 recruiting class and player development. It analyzed each school's 2016 recruiting class in terms of player contribution and hit rate.

 

Point System

 

5 Points: All-American, award winner, Top 50 NFL draft pick

4 Points: Multi-year starter, all-conference honors

3 Points: One-year starter, key backup

2 Points: Career backup

0 Points: Left program/no contribution

 

Rankings

 

1. Clemson: 3.68 average, 96% hit rate

2. Alabama: 3.48 average, 73% hit rate

3. Florida: 3.19 average, 89% hit rate

4. Notre Dame: 3.07 average, 78% hit rate

5. Georgia: 3.07 average, 75% hit rate

6. Michigan: 3.06 average, 72% hit rate

7. Minnesota: 3.04 average, 88% hit rate

8. Ohio State: 3.01 average, 68% hit rate

9. Utah: 2.97 average, 81% hit rate

10. Washington: 2.95 average, 80% hit rate

 

Other notable teams: LSU (11), Penn State (14), Oklahoma (18 ), and Stanford (23).

 

Notre Dame's 2016 recruiting class was ranked 15th. The article said that 9 members were multi-year starters, and that there were only 4 misses. Key Players: Julian Love, Chase Claypool, Khalid Kareem, Julian Okwara, Ian Book.

 

https://theathletic.com/1578377/2020/02/03/recruiting-revisited-class-of-2016-rankings/

 

number 4 is the last playoff spot am i reading that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do 2014 and 2015 look?

 

Also, will they need to finalize these re-rankings after next year's NFL draft since Top 50 Draft Pick is one of their criteria for a player being worth 5 points and some of these players will play a fifth year?

 

That was something I didn't understand - these rankings will change based on some of these guys going Top 50, but maybe not too much since some of the Top 50 draft picks were All Americans and award winners. But I had the same question when I was reading it.

 

ND was 18th for 2014 (2.62 average and 64% hit rate) and 14th in 2015 (2.74 average and 69% hit rate). Those articles are linked in the one I posted above if you're interested. Alabama and Clemson were #1 and #2 in 2015, but Stanford was #1 in 2014 (3.49 average and 85%) hit rate. There is a lot of movement, even in the Top 5/Top 10 schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One potential big flaw with their ranking is that they put a lot of weight into starting for two or more years.

 

As a result, this creates the potential for apples to oranges comparisons. For example, someone who starts for Ball State for two years is given 4 points while a one year starter at Alabama might only get 3 points if he is not drafted in Top 50.

 

Very few starters at Ball State (even if they started for 4 years) will be better players than a one year starter at Alabama.

 

Did the authors comment on this situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One potential big flaw with their ranking is that they put a lot of weight into starting for two or more years.

 

As a result, this creates the potential for apples to oranges comparisons. For example, someone who starts for Ball State for two years is given 4 points while a one year starter at Alabama might only get 3 points if he is not drafted in Top 50.

 

Very few starters at Ball State (even if they started for 4 years) will be better players than a one year starter at Alabama.

 

Did the authors comment on this situation?

 

I took the article as more of a comparison on how programs develop recruits - I don’t think it’s meant as a straight up comparison between the actual recruits. For example, ND was 4th and Ohio State was 8th, but I think most people would agree that OSU has better recruits in general and their 2016 class was more talented than ND’s overall.

 

I think it’s important to keep it all relative too. Yes, 99% of Alabama’s recruits would start at Ball State. But Ball State doesn’t get those recruits. They get MAC-level recruits who are similar in talent. So it’s just as hard for a Ball State recruit to start multiple years or get All-MAC honors as it is for an Alabama recruit to do the same. Ball State players are competing against similar recruits on their own team and across the whole conference. So when a player is a multi-year starter or named to the All-MAC team, it’s relatively the same as an Alabama player being named All-SEC, even though the Alabama player is almost certainly the better player.

 

Does that make sense? That’s how I interpreted the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least that metric makes judging them fairly even. As someone else pointed out, say a program like Miami of Ohio has a 100% hit rate on 2 stars as starters. How would you compare that to Alabama's class?

 

Yes, but the key in this stat is hit rate. No one is comparing Ball State players directly with Alabama players. If anything, this is comparing how much bang did each school get for their buck?

 

Lets take a more realistic example, lets compare a hypothetical Ball State team to a hypothetical South Carolina (Dont want to use Bama, because people will be all over Bama's nuts)

 

Ball State gets maybe 5-6 3* players each year and a bunch of 2* players, they have a hit rate of 88%

South Carolina will get 4-5 4* players each year and a bunch of 3* players, they have a hit rate of 51%

 

Obviously, on the face, South Carolina easily wins this debate, but if Ball State gets more out of their players and South Carolina has a lot of busts, their hit rate will be higher. This will also probably result in the Ball State team being more successful in their conference while South Carolina is at the bottom of their conference.

 

In that example, it was a MAC level team compared to a bottom level SEC team, now just carry that over to two top tier teams. The less busts a team has and the more they can get out of their players, the better the team is probably doing. People who are think this is comparing a Bama 5* to a Ball State 2* player are just missing the point, plain and simple.

Edited by NDhoosier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...