Rhoads Recuriting

[jaretac]

I've seen more and more threads questioning Rhoads. That is somewhat understandable. We have had 4 years of winning 3 conference games after all. Putting the SOS aside, recruiting is one of the best indicators about where the program is headed.

First I understand that players get missed by recruiting sites sometimes, but overall I think it is safe to assume that the more higher rated players the better correct? These grades are taken from ESPN, for my proposes that was the best site to get info from.

	Class Grade	# Commits	#Graded	#JC	Average Graded Commit
2013	1433	24	19	2	75.42
2012	1188	21	16	2	74.25
2011	1046	24	14	4	74.71
2010	895	28	12	7	74.58
2009	1122	25	15	6	74.80
2008	733	24	10	2	73.30
2007	497	24	7	11	71.00
2006	1149	32	16	4	71.81

First I understand that players get missed by recruiting sites sometimes but overall I think it is safe to assume that the more higher rated players the better correct? These grades are taken from ESPN, for my proposes that was the best site to get info from.

I think what pops out the most to me is that while the average grade hasn't changed that much since even Chizik's last year, the number of players that we are getting that are graded has increased.

These players weren't graded for a reason. Theory would have it more graded players equals more depth. If I were to mark non graded players as 0 and figure them into the average it would look like this:

	Average Non Juco Commit
2013	65.14
2012	62.53
2011	52.30
2010	42.62
2009	59.05
2008	33.32
2007	38.23
2006	41.04

I've before compared what Rhoads is doing here to what Gundy did at OSU. They are the only two coaches in the conference to go to bowl games 3 of their first 4 seasons. Want to take a look at OSU's class of 2006, they were 4-7 in 2005:

Class Grade	# Commits	#Graded	#JC	Average Graded Commit
1657	29	22	3	75.32

Last OSU class

Class Grade	# Commits	#Graded	#JC	Average Graded Commit
1379	23	18	3	76.61

We really are not that far behind where they were when they started winning 10+ games. The key is consistent recruiting and building upon what we have. One class does not make a team, not even two, as our depth builds our program will improve. For those worried about whether we can recruit to Ames, don't be. What the coaches can do with it is another story.

[ILiftWithRoyce]

Thanks for compiling these. This is a neat way to look at things and in fact does show that CPR might know what he's doing (insert sarcasm smiley)

[Aclone]

I understand defending CPR. But using "rankings" to do it (especially useless ESPN's rankings) isn't the way to do it.

Tell you what. Since it's CPR and his staff's evaluation skills that are relevant, run through the 2010 class, his first full signing class (the preceiding class was mostly the old staff's), and see how many of those players have contributed thus far--regardless of their ranking. And remember that most of those guys are just redshirt sophs--but are the closest to "proven or unproven".

[bawbie]

I understand defendign CPR. But using "rankings" to do it (especially usless ESPN's rankings) isn't the way to do it.

Tell you what. Since it's CPR and his staff's evaluation skills that are relevant, run through the 2010 class, his first full signing class (the preceiding class was mostly the old staff's), and see how many of those players have contributed thus far--regardless of their ranking. And remember that most of those guys are just redshirt sophs--but are the closest to "proven or unproven".

I did this with the 2011 class (RS Fr) earlier this week in another thread, but I'm too lazy to go find it now.

By my calculation 17 of the 24 members of that class played non-special teams minutes this year (maybe 18, I didn't count Pompey, but someone said he played against Kansas). That seems to be a pretty good statement by itself.

[Cyclonin]

This is a quality look, thanks for gathering.

I will play devil's advocate though.

I personally think the # graded is more due to staffing issues with ESPN. Recruiting to us consumers has ballooned the last couple years. Everyone concerned about stars,grades, offers, etc. ESPN had to keep up and now have a lot more people out there.

I tend to agree with you that we are doing better, but I don't necessarily agree the # graded recruits is the difference.

[Aclone]

I did this with the 2011 class (RS Fr) earlier this week in another thread, but I'm too lazy to go find it now.

By my calculation 17 of the 24 members of that class played non-special teams minutes this year (maybe 18, I didn't count Pompey, but someone said he played against Kansas). That seems to be a pretty good statement by itself.

Exactly. I think that you will see more and more of CPR's own recruits contributing solidly as each class progresses.

[theyork]

I understand defending CPR. But using "rankings" to do it (especially useless ESPN's rankings) isn't the way to do it.

Tell you what. Since it's CPR and his staff's evaluation skills that are relevant, run through the 2010 class, his first full signing class (the preceiding class was mostly the old staff's), and see how many of those players have contributed thus far--regardless of their ranking. And remember that most of those guys are just redshirt sophs--but are the closest to "proven or unproven".

recruit rankings and young players contributing don't necessarily indicate direction or success. wins do. the most telling sign to me that we are at least heading in the right direction is that we generally are in the games in the 4 quarter with a chance to win. we haven't won all of them, but having that chance is half the battle. now, just win (duh, right). we have gotten to the point where we are consistently average, instead of being consistently bad. now we need to get to being consistently good.

[Big_Sill]

I've seen more and more threads questioning Rhoads. That is somewhat understandable. We have had 4 years of winning 3 conference games after all. Putting the SOS aside, recruiting is one of the best indicators about where the program is headed.

First I understand that players get missed by recruiting sites sometimes, but overall I think it is safe to assume that the more higher rated players the better correct? These grades are taken from ESPN, for my proposes that was the best site to get info from.

	Class Grade	# Commits	#Graded	#JC	Average Graded Commit
2013	1433	24	19	2	75.42
2012	1188	21	16	2	74.25
2011	1046	24	14	4	74.71
2010	895	28	12	7	74.58
2009	1122	25	15	6	74.80
2008	733	24	10	2	73.30
2007	497	24	7	11	71.00
2006	1149	32	16	4	71.81

First I understand that players get missed by recruiting sites sometimes but overall I think it is safe to assume that the more higher rated players the better correct? These grades are taken from ESPN, for my proposes that was the best site to get info from.

I think what pops out the most to me is that while the average grade hasn't changed that much since even Chizik's last year, the number of players that we are getting that are graded has increased.

These players weren't graded for a reason. Theory would have it more graded players equals more depth. If I were to mark non graded players as 0 and figure them into the average it would look like this:

	Average Non Juco Commit
2013	65.14
2012	62.53
2011	52.30
2010	42.62
2009	59.05
2008	33.32
2007	38.23
2006	41.04

I've before compared what Rhoads is doing here to what Gundy did at OSU. They are the only two coaches in the conference to go to bowl games 3 of their first 4 seasons. Want to take a look at OSU's class of 2006, they were 4-7 in 2005:

Class Grade	# Commits	#Graded	#JC	Average Graded Commit
1657	29	22	3	75.32

Last OSU class

Class Grade	# Commits	#Graded	#JC	Average Graded Commit
1379	23	18	3	76.61

We really are not that far behind where they were when they started winning 10+ games. The key is consistent recruiting and building upon what we have. One class does not make a team, not even two, as our depth builds our program will improve. For those worried about whether we can recruit to Ames, don't be. What the coaches can do with it is another story.

Nothing new here, but recruiting rankings in football are a waste of time. Too many players across too many different states, divisions, level of competition to get a accurate evaluation. I place no importance on recruiting rankings. "Scouts" these days are guys like us watching YouTube highlight videos prepared by Parents and checking offer lists.

[djcubby]

Well, at least you spelled Rhoads correctly

[theyork]

Exactly. I think that you will see more and more of CPR's own recruits contributing solidly as each class progresses.

well i certainly hope so. soon enough they'll all be CPR's "own" recruits. isn't there only one more year of chiz recruits left after this season?

[pulse]

Nothing new here, but recruiting rankings in football are a waste of time. Too many players across too many different states, divisions, level of competition to get a accurate evaluation. I place no importance on recruiting rankings. "Scouts" these days are guys like us watching YouTube highlight videos prepared by Parents and checking offer lists.

I've never understood how people can't grasp this simple concept.

Recruiting sites are for making money from people who don't understand this.

[BringBackJohnny]

I am pretty sure Paul once Said I don't care if you are black or white, 4 stars or no stars, as long as you buy into "All In" Paul will be sooo proud! :)

[Clones85']

Anybody who says that recruiting rankings for football don't matter....is clueless.

[Cyclonic1]

Thanks for taking the time to put that post together - very interesting and informative.

[bosco]

This is interesting. But we need another team to compare. Could this be done for EIU for the same time period since during this time it is the same coaching staff. Not that I doubt the improvement but this could help eliminate extraneous factors like maybe over time scouting has gotten better therefore sites are able to evaluate more players and the such.

If EIU rankings are steady or are over the place then it would lend same validity that maybe the recruiting has indeed improved.