FB Recruiting Avg Rating Comparison

[CySoup]

I just don't see much difference in this year's class over any other year so far really. If you look at Rivals a 5.4 ranking is a 2*, and a 5.5 ranking is the bottom 3*. If you are a 3* with a 5.7 ranking, you are knocking on the door of being a 4* in their system.

We basically have 3 players that are high 3*/4*, but we have a ton of the 3* kids that are rated 5.5 which is just above a 2* rating. We have 18 low 3*/2* kids coming in.

Now I'm not a huge believe in the * rankings, but they have some merit. Yet in essence they just reflect the offers a kid has. A 2* or low 3* kid has mostly all MAC level or FCS offers. The mid level 3* will have a couple Power 5 offers and a high 3* and 4* kid will have multiple Power 5 offers.

In the end I think it is more about developing the talent when you get the kids that an ISU does. This is what Campbell has been able to do at Toledo, and what we need him to do here. We do need to improve recruiting as well and consistently get more mid to high level 3* kids (5.6 and 5.7 rankings), but that was always going to be a tough sled for this year.

 

[BCClone]

Wow. Austin Flynn a 4-star QB. And Waye Terry a 3-star QB. Nick Leaders a 2-star DT.

They were awful QB's. Leaders was a great DT. Those ratings were way off.

Flynn was thrown to the wolves as a RS freshmen. He had the difficult schedule to contend with and dmac kept playing musical chairs at qb. Can't really say what would have been if he would have had a different qb in front of him for one more year.

 

[nhclone]

Not disagreeing with the points above, but I linked Rivals because they were basically the only real good recruiting service in 2002. Rivals anymore would be about 3rd in my opinion, with 247 being far and away the best since it uses a composite rating system that combines several evaluations.

 

[BoomerangJ]

If you torture the data long enough-it will tell you anything that you want!

All I know is that for the first time in my 40 years of being an ISU fan I'm reading a lot more recruiting boards. The marketing and hype is working on me. We shall see this fall and it will be very interesting what our program is doing in five years. It does seem that we have more pieces in place now then we ever have. Living in Longhorn country (Austin, Texas)-I'm proud that we now have the 3rd largest stadium in the B12, and other facilities second to none. And the best fan base in the B12. I can't wait to take my daughter in law UT grad to the ISU-Texas game in Ames fall of 2017!

 

[rholtgraves]

Which classes are better than this one?

2016 2.5

These classes were better according to Rivals
2002 2.77
2010 2.71
2011 2.65
2012 2.76

These classes basically the same
2005 2.52
2006 2.5
2009 2.52
2013 2.56
2014 2.52

 

[clone52]

No it won't. It isn't close to the best class ISU has had.
Avg rating is good to look at bc amount of recruits will increase team ranking even if you have mostly 2 stars.

According to 247 sports, the average rating is the 2nd best class at ISU since 2002, only beated by 2014.

 

[rholtgraves]

According to 247 sports, the average rating is the 2nd best class at ISU since 2002, only beated by 2014.

The problem with that is that 247 has only been doing this a few years so a lot of the earlier comp rankings are skewed and they will include walk ins which brings the average ranking down. Their really only accurate for looking at the past few years. ESPN only goes back so far as well and they don't tend to evaluate as many prospects as the other good sites for example I don't think they used to rate JuCOs at all which would bring down ISUs composites in the earlier years.

The other thing to look at is how they are doing avg rating wise in conference which is basically the same as every other year. I think every year people say the current class is better than before but it's often not.

The biggest thing though for Campbell in his staff is to be able to identify under the radar talent and develop it. Bc ISU is never going to be great at recruiting.

 

[clone52]

No it won't. It isn't close to the best class ISU has had.
Avg rating is good to look at bc amount of recruits will increase team ranking even if you have mostly 2 stars.

According to 247 sports, the average rating is the 2nd best class at ISU since 2002, only beated by 2014.

Rivals raatings are different, but if you look at Rating and not Stars, you'll see that even though the 2012 average stars was quite a bit higher, the average Rivals Rating was not much different in 2012 to 2016 (5.50 to 5.48). The average rating in 2011 was less than 2016.

 

[klamath632]

So was ShopTalk banned for all this idiotic crap? Or is he just laying low on his own?

 

[clone52]

The problem with that is that 247 has only been doing this a few years so a lot of the earlier comp rankings are skewed and they will include walk ins which brings the average ranking down. Their really only accurate for looking at the past few years. ESPN only goes back so far as well and they don't tend to evaluate as many prospects as the other good sites for example I don't think they used to rate JuCOs at all which would bring down ISUs composites in the earlier years.

The other thing to look at is how they are doing avg rating wise in conference which is basically the same as every other year. I think every year people say the current class is better than before but it's often not.

The biggest thing though for Campbell in his staff is to be able to identify under the radar talent and develop it. Bc ISU is never going to be great at recruiting.

Rivals Ratings
2016: 5.48 average rating
2012: 5.50 average rating
2011: 5.47 average rating
2010: 5.47 average rating
2002: Rivals did not do ratings, just stars

Your classes that were better than 2016 based on stars really weren't rated all that much better once you dug a little deeper.

 

[JDDCy]

The amount of stars a service like Rivals gives out varies from time to time. Back in 2002 all you had to do to get 4 stars was be a Juco guy and big. Having a cool nickname like "The Big Cat" helped as well. You did not have to have any talent. Look at the offers for those guys. We had a lot of Juco's with no other offers somehow get rated 4 stars. The only one I remember playing much was Colin Menard and he was no All American. Even the High School kids like Flynn and Stevie Hicks had less offers than just about all of this years 3 stars.

 

[rholtgraves]

Rivals Ratings
2016: 5.48 average rating
2012: 5.50 average rating
2011: 5.47 average rating
2010: 5.47 average rating
2002: Rivals did not do ratings, just stars

Your classes that were better than 2016 based on stars really weren't rated all that much better once you dug a little deeper.

So if you make up a rating they are equal? There is a reason rivals doesn't do that. Look at the 13, 14 and 15 classes and I you would get about 5.45 or so to 5.5 avg. so all the classes are the same....

 

[CYKOFAN]

Rivals Ratings
2016: 5.48 average rating
2012: 5.50 average rating
2011: 5.47 average rating
2010: 5.47 average rating
2002: Rivals did not do ratings, just stars

Your classes that were better than 2016 based on stars really weren't rated all that much better once you dug a little deeper.

I didn't expect this to be a great class, I'm just impressed CMC and staff have done as well as they have given the late start, and there could be more good news to come. Obviously just as important is developing these players and putting them in good position to win on game day.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I don't need a computer to show me that Campbell is kicking *** and taking names. Compared to Michigan? Of course not, come on guys we're all Cyclones here right? Who are we kidding? Dude is lighting it on fire right now. If we land one of Pine, Allen, or Cochran are people finally going to stop arguing semantics here? Guy has been here two months. There should be a poster of him Tomahawk dunking over Rhoads in honor of his legend, and I like Rhoads.

Let the berating begin... :smile:

 

[CyFy]

I think comparing the conference and national ranks gives a better understanding because it gives a snapshot of a certain year compared to other schools. Comparing year to year is tough because a guy could change rating and star depending on what else is available in that class. The best in the class will be 4 and 5* but that doesn't mean they would be if they would have graduated a year before or a year later