We give scholarships to Kickers, punters and (sometimes) long snappers. Not all schools do that. That lowers our recruiting classes. Our classes are always around #50 nationwide, yet we go 6-3 in conference, or we win a NY6 bowl game. Things just don't always make sense. It's true, the top ten recruiting schools are generally the best teams. So yes, recruiting ratings mean something. But, that oblong ball bounces in funny ways and there are just a lot of other elements that can affect your results. Like, are you facing 5 ranked teams out of 12 games? Or maybe just 1 or 2 ranked teams. Your 3 star recruits can do fairly well when they mostly face similar competition.
247 recruiting rankings
- Thread starter acoustimac
- Start date
OP seems to often be critical of the football staff and quick to defend the women bball staff. I don’t understand the dislike for CMC. We all know there are many recruiting disadvantages at Iowa State for football, CMC consistently overcomes those to produce quality teams.
Brock Purdy is a Super Bowl and Pro Bowl quarterback. His 247 Composite Ranking was .8594.
TJ Tampa is one of the best athletes to ever play at ISU, and a likely high draft pick. His 247 Composite was .8484.
Don’t make me do Will McDonald. Or Charlie Kolar.
Remind me again. Which is more important? Rankings—or the coaches getting the guys they like?
TJ Tampa is one of the best athletes to ever play at ISU, and a likely high draft pick. His 247 Composite was .8484.
Don’t make me do Will McDonald. Or Charlie Kolar.
Remind me again. Which is more important? Rankings—or the coaches getting the guys they like?
And Greg Gaines is now at Rhode Island and nobody seems to know what happened to Hunter Deyo, both of whom were 4 star recruits.
But these individual examples are closer to the exception than the rule.
While individual player rankings are often horrendously wrong, overall class ratings tend to correlate very well with on-field success.
I was going to say the same thing.
To add, this is the trend across all of college football. Yes, there are exceptions where some schools punch above their weight for a while, and others sink below where they should be f or a while. But overall, the trend shows that higher ranked recruiting classes leads to programs winning more.
Both are important. I get the point you are trying to make and this staff finds some diamonds in the rough but higher recruiting rankings over a 4-5 period often leads to more success. Yes, there are outliers like a Miami but more often than not the better talent the better results.
CMC and staff lifted our recruiting class rankings from CPRs staff and we started seeing results immediately with 7-8 wins seasons happening pretty regulary from 6 wins being our ceiling. Now I’d like them to take another jump to see if we can take the next step as a program. (10 win season, Big 12 champ, playoff)
Not to mention how much money TJ and Will turned down to stay at ISU. Must be doing something right
CMC isn't going to chase the high ranked kids that he knows he will have to fight to keep. This staff is going to continue to focus on three star kids that they see a high upside with, especially in the new NIL world. They are following the "develop & retain model".
The margin for being ranked in the top half v bottom half is so small. There's so much parity in this conference both on the field and recruiting. One year we could be ranked top 5, the next, last. We just need to find the right sauce of players, formation, plays for the new look league.
Uhh, how often has that happened?
Under CMC we've gone 6-3 or better in 3 out of 8 seasons with him as head coach. Granted, that's much better than before. And he's had a winning conference record in 6 out of 8 seasons. But we've only won a NY6 bowl once.
That's reflective of our recruiting rankings and a great coaching staff. We're not getting the best recruits to break through to a consistent Top 25 level. But we're generally better than our #50 recruiting rankings each year.
We have a great coaching staff that knows how to identify talent and develop players. But we could be recruiting better in order to get those consistent 8+ win seasons...
By chase high ranked kids you mean like blue chips? Yeah no one is expecting that. But I don’t think it’s crazy to want our classes be in 35-45 range as the next step. NIL isn’t as much of a factor when recruiting those types of players as you think. This past recruiting class a lot of them had very little P5(4) offers. The first thingo I look at is “who else wants him”.
"Recruiting is destiny", everyone knows this and Jimbo Fisher and Texas A&M proved it!
ISU's recruiting rankings have and will always be lower than the reality of the recruits, just based on name on jersey. And I would rather have great coaching than great recruits at ISU's level - ie non-blue blood, developmental program.
ISU's recruiting rankings have and will always be lower than the reality of the recruits, just based on name on jersey. And I would rather have great coaching than great recruits at ISU's level - ie non-blue blood, developmental program.
Bingo. We shouldn’t have classes similar to Tulsa and Cal. Also WTF KSU, Baylor, and Ok St? Their high school rankings are lower than ours. Unless they are focusing on rebuilding through the portal every year?
It is strange that the media seems to think that a huge transfer class full of 4 stars is a sign of success. To me it indicates that you have significant outflow, showing a lack of being able to correctly judge talent and/or integrate the recruits into your system. Very few coaching staffs can successfully integrate a 15+ transfer class into their 2 deeps...and even then, success means a large outflow of current players.
Better to give more credit to staffs that develop and keep talent, obtaining decent to good results, sometimes great results.
Right but that no longer matters with NIL/the portal. Recruiting services are going to bundle it al up.
They’re trying to match tOSU for who can buy the most expensive team for this fall. Neither could get it done the natural, developmental, or coaching ways so resorted to what they do best - spend money.
