Jump to content

Scout Team Rankings


Guest The_Dude_454

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest The_Dude_454

Im not sure its Texas we have to worry about since they already have 20 recruits. OSU probably, but USC, Oklahoma, and Georgia will probably charge hard, and Florida once they start poaching will make a run.... unless this year Urban Cryer gets paid back for what he did last year....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Texas already has 20 and we're ahead of them. We're looking at a possible good month of Floyd (5) McCarthy (4) and Jeremy (4) so it's only up from here on out. Jeremy cannot possibly stay at 3...I don't even know what that is about and that isn't even because he'll be Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I know it is exciting to see us sitting in the #1 spot but way to much is made about these rankings this early. There is a long way to go and a lot of talent still left on the board.

 

Often times teams get ranked high because they sign players in large numbers (many of whom never make it to the school). It is hard for ND to compete against these schools who take 28 recruits every year.

 

Will you be disappointed if ND isn't in the top 10 next year? We may not be if we have a limited number of schollies to give out, does that mean the class wasn't good? No.

 

Rankings, as they are defined, mean little. In my opinion, rankings should be based on average star value and not total points. This would be a better indicator of who had the most success with recruiting and would take the numbers game out of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NDisNCin2010
Guys, I know it is exciting to see us sitting in the #1 spot but way to much is made about these rankings this early. There is a long way to go and a lot of talent still left on the board.

 

Often times teams get ranked high because they sign players in large numbers (many of whom never make it to the school). It is hard for ND to compete against these schools who take 28 recruits every year.

 

Will you be disappointed if ND isn't in the top 10 next year? We may not be if we have a limited number of schollies to give out, does that mean the class wasn't good? No.

 

Rankings, as they are defined, mean little. In my opinion, rankings should be based on average star value and not total points. This would be a better indicator of who had the most success with recruiting and would take the numbers game out of the equation.

 

 

based on your thoughts you would like that Romanelli ranking system-takes al of above into account.

 

i know "ratings/schmatings"...but is nice to be rated #1, wouldnt you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I know it is exciting to see us sitting in the #1 spot but way to much is made about these rankings this early. There is a long way to go and a lot of talent still left on the board.

 

Often times teams get ranked high because they sign players in large numbers (many of whom never make it to the school). It is hard for ND to compete against these schools who take 28 recruits every year.

 

Will you be disappointed if ND isn't in the top 10 next year? We may not be if we have a limited number of schollies to give out, does that mean the class wasn't good? No.

 

Rankings, as they are defined, mean little. In my opinion, rankings should be based on average star value and not total points. This would be a better indicator of who had the most success with recruiting and would take the numbers game out of the equation.

 

-------Party pooper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I'm coming across as Debbie Downer. I just don't put much stock into them this early. I don't think you can even go by avg. star ratings this early.

 

I think at the end of the year, you rank the teams by avg star rating and see where you fall out. Then you adjust those rankings subjectively based on how well the teams met their areas of need. Then if we are number 1 you really have something to celebrate.

 

Ultimately, I think ND is at a disadvantage in the rankings because of how we recruit and we shouldn't be disappointed if we aren't sitting in the top spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True on rankings - we may not be sitting at top when all is said and done. But this is a clear indication of how well we have done so far!! The guys we are in on for the remaining spots are all 4-5 star guys (Filer, Floyd, Sabino, Brown, Fortson, etc.) and average star rating should actually come up from where it is right now. I think we will be top 3 and will be ecstatic with that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of statistics, based on Scout's ratings only to prove my point that we are better of by avg rating.

 

Year............Total Recruits.............Rating by Total Pts......Rating by avg

2007.................18...............................11.............................6

2006.................28...............................5...............................5

2005.................15...............................27.............................15

2004.................17...............................30.............................14

2003.................21...............................5...............................6

2002.................18...............................13.............................8

 

Now, I don't think anyone would argue that 2004 and 2005 were some of our worst years recruiting in a long time. But, if you look at the numbers a bit differently, it would tell us that other than those 2 years we've been relatively consistent in the rating we receive and we have been consistently in the top ten as far as talent is concerned. That doesn't mean that we have been filling the talent gaps in the right places.

 

Anyway, just some food for thought. I know there isn't a right or wrong answer here, only opinion. Oh, and sorry about the table, I couldn't figure out how to get it to format without putting all of the dots in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The_Dude_454

Yes the recruiting rankings should be taken with a grain of salt since many of them are busts. But you cannot argue that USC and Texas and Florida are generally in the top 5, and they have been doing well on the gridiron. It doesn't translate exactly, recruiting rankings to success on the field, but teams that generate top classes usually perform better. This could be that better coaches are better recruiters, but we also know not every coach can win with top talent. I guess I'm just saying that generally top classes will ensure some success on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest heismancaliber
Yes the recruiting rankings should be taken with a grain of salt since many of them are busts. But you cannot argue that USC and Texas and Florida are generally in the top 5, and they have been doing well on the gridiron. It doesn't translate exactly, recruiting rankings to success on the field, but teams that generate top classes usually perform better. This could be that better coaches are better recruiters, but we also know not every coach can win with top talent. I guess I'm just saying that generally top classes will ensure some success on the field.

 

No argument with that assessment at all, i think what people are saying is that getting excited over recruiting rankings in July is like getting excited about a 7-0 lead with 5:00 left in the 1st quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The_Dude_454
Yes the recruiting rankings should be taken with a grain of salt since many of them are busts. But you cannot argue that USC and Texas and Florida are generally in the top 5, and they have been doing well on the gridiron. It doesn't translate exactly, recruiting rankings to success on the field, but teams that generate top classes usually perform better. This could be that better coaches are better recruiters, but we also know not every coach can win with top talent. I guess I'm just saying that generally top classes will ensure some success on the field.

 

No argument with that assessment at all, i think what people are saying is that getting excited over recruiting rankings in July is like getting excited about a 7-0 lead with 5:00 left in the 1st quarter.

 

 

gooootcha..... but still I like the way this class is coming together, and it is nice to get the recognition, even if it is early

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that our remaining targets are aware that ND is putting together a fine class, but it sure doesn't hurt with prospects that probably weren't strongly considering ND until we began to gain momentum and then to be ranked #1 could just put us up over the top. This might help with a guy like Sabino and help get Arthur Brown onto campus...maybe even a Will Hill which has been a subject of discussion as most of you probably know...

 

Go Irish!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the recruiting rankings should be taken with a grain of salt since many of them are busts. But you cannot argue that USC and Texas and Florida are generally in the top 5, and they have been doing well on the gridiron. It doesn't translate exactly, recruiting rankings to success on the field, but teams that generate top classes usually perform better. This could be that better coaches are better recruiters, but we also know not every coach can win with top talent. I guess I'm just saying that generally top classes will ensure some success on the field.

 

So, based on your post, I thought I would evaluate USC, Texas, and Florida over the same time period as I did for ND. The first number in each column was their ranking by total points and the second number was by average player rating. Here are the results.

 

 

Year..................USC................Texas..............Florida..............ND

2007..................2 / 1...............3 / 4..................1 / 2............11 / 6

2006..................1 / 1...............3 / 3..................2 / 2.............5 / 5

2005..................6 / 1.............13 / 4................11 / 5............27 / 15

2004..................1 / 1.............10 / 9..................8 / 6............30 / 14

2003..................1 / 7.............14 / 9..................4 / 1..............5 / 6

2002................12 / 20.............1 / 7................20 / 28...........13 / 8

4 Yr Avg..........2.5 / 1...........7.3 / 5...............5.5 / 3.8........18.5 / 10

 

Looking at the 4 year averages, it is easy to see why USC has been so dominant. Looking at his from a player ranking average, it is obvious how much the recruiting classes in 2004 and 2005 set us back. Regardless though, we still have top 25 talent on this team and likely top 10 talent, it is just very young.

 

Unfortunately, what this doesn't take into account is coaching, schedule, injuries, depth, and experience. Notre Dame has great coaching, a top tier schedule, limited depth and experience. After this recruiting class being amassed, we will be much closer to being in the title hunt year in and year out.

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.




×
×
  • Create New...