Football signing day

[Olympic Fan]

Olympic Fan....it was Scout, not Rivals that downgraded Butler when he signed with Duke. Scout is far more political and inaccurate than Rivals...not even close. And while you can point to ND as an example of a team whose talent may from time to time be overrated...the usual suspects in recruiting rankings USC, UGA, UF,LSU, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State also usually field the better teams. While not 100% indicative, the rankings are more accurate than you give them credit for.

Train ... obviously you follow football recruiting closer than I do, so I'm sure your opinion is right ... although there is a thread on the State board that suggests that Miller Safrit, the Scourt regional "expert" has a strong UNC bias -- they cite three cases where player rankings rose after they committed to UNC. They also assert that one reasons Buntings classes were ranked so high (and achieved so little on the field) was Safrit's built-in UNC bias.

I don't know enough to comment ... however, I do know that all recruiting services are biased towards the traditional superpowers -- kids that are targeted by Ohio State, Michigan, Texas and Southern Cal must be good because those schools go after them (and I'm not saying it's a bad system ... those schools do tend to recruit the best players). The same effect boosts Duke and UNC basketball recruiting targets.

I do know that I'd have a lot more respect for the recruiting services if they had any success in projecting the rise of a non-traditional power. I cited Wake's rise to ACC contention without ever landing a top class -- or even a near-top class. I read once that when Barry Alvarez built Wisconsin into a dominant Big Ten power in the early 1990s, he never had a class rated higher than seventh in the Big Ten -- until he won the Big Ten title and went to the Rose Bowl. THEN his rankings rose. There was no hint in the recruiting rankings to Northwestern's explosive climb to back-to-back Big Ten titles in the mid-1990s.

I'm not saying that such things are useless, only that they should be viewed with extreme caution. A Notre Dame is never going to have a terrible recruiting ranking (even when they deserve it) because they are Notre Dame and if Notre Dame is going after a kid, they must be good. And at Duke Cutcliffe could built a team capable of competing at the top of the ACC without ever having a class ranked in the top 25 nationally.

Cutcliffe was asked about the ranking system yesterday and said something like: "There are 5-star guys my 13-year-old daughter could identify as great prospects. Beyond that, it's all opinion and a lot of those opinions are wrong."

[TheTrain]

If you have read my rants on the Devils Den, I have taken on Miller Safrit on more than one occasion. I don't hold his opinion in high regard because I believe he and his colleagues at Scout are influenced by site masters in arriving at their conclusions. I pay very little attention to what he says.

But there is a pretty decent (but not perfect) correlation between Rivals rankings and the who are the best teams. There will always be teams that have staffs that are outstanding at developing talent (e.g., Wake) or run a creative system (e.g., Utah under Urban Meyer) that can get around talent disparities. There will also be teams that recruit talented players (e.g., UVA and FSU) that underachieve. But there is no getting around the fact that typically USC, OU, Texas, UF, UGA, LSU, OSU and Michigan have great classes and they consistently have highly ranked teams. I also think you can see the rise in certain programs through the rankings...Cal and Oregon are decent examples.

[ugadevil]

Football Signing day is something else at an SEC school. It's on the front page of the paper, mentioned on radio shows (not just sports radio), and is all over the TV News. I work with people who took the day off so that they could be at the athletic building to get updates about how the recruiting class was looking. It worked out for me because no one cared if I left early to prepare for the real sporting event that took place in hell last night.

Cutcliffe has experience with this type of culture and he knows the importance of recruiting and making it a big deal for the incoming players. It's a good sign for your program when people start to circle the dates of signing day and the spring scrimmage.

[RPS]

But there is a pretty decent (but not perfect) correlation between Rivals rankings and the who are the best teams. There will always be teams that have staffs that are outstanding at developing talent (e.g., Wake) or run a creative system (e.g., Utah under Urban Meyer) that can get around talent disparities. There will also be teams that recruit talented players (e.g., UVA and FSU) that underachieve. But there is no getting around the fact that typically USC, OU, Texas, UF, UGA, LSU, OSU and Michigan have great classes and they consistently have highly ranked teams. I also think you can see the rise in certain programs through the rankings...Cal and Oregon are decent examples.

I have more than a passing interest in PAC-10 recruiting (and especially Cal) and want to validate what you say here. But remember too that despite the rough justice of the recruiting sites (and I agree that Rivals is better than Scout), they have inherent problems. Kids who were injured as juniors or who really come on as seniors often have trouble getting ranked in a timely way and are often undervalued. Kicker and punter rankings are fraught with inaccuracy (compare any Groza nominee list with the rankings). Players recruited by the football factories are presumed to be good or are deemed especially good based as much upon the schools that recruit or sign them as upon their actual talent and potential. Rankings also don't reflect which players actually enroll, how they will fit in and what role they will be asked to play in a given system. Coach's answer asserting that he and his staff know what a football player looks like is exactly the right one, especially since they seem well qualified and well positioned to start backing it up. All the early signs of that the Cutcliffe era are promising. Yesterday was a very good day.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Are any coaches or fans saying that they are disappointed in their recruiting class?

It seems to me with so many players and so many positions, every team finds something to feel good about.

I do feel much Duke football under Coach Cutcliffe. This is a more general question/comment and not aimed at Duke.

SoCal

[ugadevil]

Are any coaches or fans saying that they are disappointed in their recruiting class?

It seems to me with so many players and so many positions, every team finds something to feel good about.

I do feel much Duke football under Coach Cutcliffe. This is a more general question/comment and not aimed at Duke.

SoCal

I'd like to hear a Georgia Tech fan persuade me as to why their recruiting class is good.

[watzone]

Olympic Fan....it was Scout, not Rivals that downgraded Butler when he signed with Duke. Scout is far more political and inaccurate than Rivals...not even close. And while you can point to ND as an example of a team whose talent may from time to time be overrated...the usual suspects in recruiting rankings USC, UGA, UF,LSU, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State also usually field the better teams. While not 100% indicative, the rankings are more accurate than you give them credit for.

I asked him the question about star ratings and think his answer shedded light on what most of us know to be true in that it is political.

[RPS]

Are any coaches or fans saying that they are disappointed in their recruiting class?

Yes, absolutely. Many Cal fans are upset that this year's class is only ranked #31, for example (which they attribute to the late-season collapse). USC fans think they had an off-year (they slipped out of the top 5). Oregon State is perennially disappointed that relative on-field success doesn't translate to "better" recruits. The list goes on...

[gotham devil]

Olympic Fan....it was Scout, not Rivals that downgraded Butler when he signed with Duke. Scout is far more political and inaccurate than Rivals...not even close. And while you can point to ND as an example of a team whose talent may from time to time be overrated...the usual suspects in recruiting rankings USC, UGA, UF,LSU, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State also usually field the better teams. While not 100% indicative, the rankings are more accurate than you give them credit for.

Exactly, he's also wrong about the last two classes of Willingham at Notre Dame. He was the laziest recruiter this side of Jeffrey Lebowski. They were well below ND's normal standards. Weis had them as his upperclassmen last season. They will be back very quickly.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Yes, absolutely. Many Cal fans are upset that this year's class is only ranked #31, for example (which they attribute to the late-season collapse). USC fans think they had an off-year (they slipped out of the top 5). Oregon State is perennially disappointed that relative on-field success doesn't translate to "better" recruits. The list goes on...

It may all be spin but Pete Carroll seemed very happy with the class which he calls a "big" class, big players, not big with lots of players. He noted that he thinks everyone in the class could be a major contributor. This guy at the USC Rivals Board thinks this could be Carroll's most effective class. http://usc.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fi...888705&style=1

I know that Cal fans are disappointed, but am not sure what their coaches are saying.

SoCal

[RPS]

It may all be spin but Pete Carroll seemed very happy with the class which he calls a "big" class, big players, not big with lots of players. He noted that he thinks everyone in the class could be a major contributor.

It's impossible to tell the spin from the true feeling (I assume it's typically a mixture of both). Plus, the rankings factor quantity of players into the mix (a smaller class is necessarily marked down irrespective of quality, need, etc.) and no recruiting class stands on its own -- it has to be seen in context to the rest of the program (needs, depth, etc.).

This guy at the USC Rivals Board thinks this could be Carroll's most effective class. http://usc.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fi...888705&style=1

He could be right or he could simply be shilling the company line. Besides, you asked about "fans" too and many of them are whining.

I know that Cal fans are disappointed, but am not sure what their coaches are saying.

They (the two I spoke with) told me they're basically pleased, but some of that my have spin too...