Mother of All Recruiting Rankings Post

[Eternal Return]

*2010-17 recruiting rankings: 1st # overall ranking/2nd # ranking for avg. points per player

*2014-17 records and end of season rankings (AP/Coaches polls for 2014-16; CFP poll for 2017—I used these polls because the final AP/Coaches polls were recorded after the bowl games; 2017 is obviously for games played and final CFP poll numbers before the bowls)

First off, this is for fun, not to use as a hammer to bludgeon other posters, lol. You’ll notice that I included the 2014-2017 seasons’ rankings—I decided to only go back as far as the CFP. To do that, I needed to go back to the 2010 recruiting seasons in order to fill out the upper classmen in each year between 2014-2017. There are tons of holes that would need to be filled for a much more complete analysis: attrition from injuries, transfers, and players declaring early for NFL as just one example. SOS might be another, but that’s a wishy washy number without other data, anyway. Offensive and defensive schemes play a factor, injuries for parts of seasons, etc. Also coaching changes and overall program stability/instability.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to make this list after the Ohio State versus Alabama CFP argument. I put it together while watching NFL games Sunday. I wanted to see if the whole “SEC dominance” was real or not so I compared their recruiting rankings with their end-of-season top 25 results. One thing that stood out to me was that not a single B10 West team besides Nebraska had a top 25 recruiting class between 2010 and 2017. Based on that it’s easy to see why the B10 West is perceived by some *ahem* as the “fake ID of college football.”

One more thing. The reason I think the avg points per player (appp) rank is superior to the overall ranking over time is because there are some years when a team only has 12 recruits while averaging 3.8 per player versus another team with 24 recruits with just a 3.1 appp. If using multiple years, the average points per player means a lot more than the overall rank.

Hope you find this enjoyable. It was fun to put this together. *I was going to put a brief analysis of each team, but this is long as is. Plus, this let's you guys fight out what all this means.


SEC:

Alabama 2010-17 recruiting: 4(8); 1(1); 1(3); 1(3); 1(1); 2(3); 1(1); 1(1)

Alabama 2014-17 records/ranks: 12-2(4); 14-1(1); 14-1(2); 11-1(4)


Georgia 2010-17 recruiting: 15(11); 5(7); 12(12); 12(14); 7(7); 6(12); 9(5); 3(7)

Georgia 2014-17 records/ranks: 10-3(9); 10-3(24/—); 8-5(—); 12-1(3)


LSU 2010-17 recruiting: 6(5); 6(4); 18(22); 6(5); 2 (3); 8(14); 5(11); 8(8)

LSU 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-5(—); 9-3(16/17); 8-4(13/14); 9-3(17)


Auburn 2010-17 recruiting: 4(8); 7(5); 10(8); 8(13); 9(10); 7(5); 8(6); 14(16)

Auburn 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-5(22/23); 7-6(—); 8-5(24/22); 10-3(7)


Texas A&M 2010-17 recruiting: 17(18); —; 15(14); 11(15); 6(4); 10(20); 17(14); 10(14)

Texas A&M 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-5(—); 8-5(—); 8-5(—); 7-5(—)


S. Carolina 2010-17 recruiting: 24(40); 18(19); 19(21); 16(16); 16(13); 19(17); —; 16(25)

S. Carolina 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-6(—); 3-9(—); 6-7(—); 8-4(—)


Florida 2010-17 recruiting: 2(3); 12(6); 3(6); 4(10); —; 23(19); 14(17); 9(10)

Florida 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-5(—); 10-4(25); 9-4(13/14); 4-7(—)


Miss. St. 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; —; —; —; 16(30); 34(25); —

Miss St. 2014-17 records/ranks: 10-3(11/12); 9-4(—); 6-7(—); 8-4(23)


Ole Miss 2010-17 recruiting: 18(25); 19(24); —; 7(12); 19(20); 21(28); 7(9); —

Ole Miss 2014-17 records/ranks: 9-4(19/17); 10-3(9/10); 5-7(—); 6-6(—)


Tenn 2010-17 recruiting rankings: 9(13); 13(15); 17(15); 21(23); 5(5); 5(6); 15(13); 15(22)

Tenn 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-6(—); 9-4(22/23); 9-4(22/23); 4-8(—)


Arkansas 2010-17 recruiting: —; 24(28); —; —; —; 25(23); —; 24(32)

Arkansas 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-6(—); 8-5(—); 7-6(—); 4-8(—)


Kentucky 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; —; —; 17(16); —; —; —

Kentucky 2014-17 records/ranks: 5-7(—); 5-7(—); 7-6(—); 7-5(—)


Vanderbilt 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; 29(24); 19(25); —; —; —; —

Vanderbilt 2014-17 records/ranks: 3-9(—); 4-8(—); 6-7(—); 5-7(—)

***Hate to say it, but there may be some truth to SEC teams beating the crap out of each other during their conference seasons. Many underperforming, though


PAC12:

USC 2010-17 recruiting: 1(1); 4(11); 8(1); 13(1); 10(12); 1(2); 10(3); 6(5)

USC 2014-17 records/ranks: 9-4(21/20); 8-6(—); 10-3(5/3); 11-2(8)


Stanford 2010-17 recruiting: —; 22(17); 5(4); 63(18); 14(14); 18(20); 19(23); 19(3)

Stanford 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-5(—); 12-2(3); 10-3(12); 9-4(13)


Oregon 2010-17 recruiting: 13(14); 9(8); 16(16); 22(22); 26(25); 17(15); 25(32); 18(20)

Oregon 2014-17 records/ranks: 13-2(2); 9-4(20/19); 4-8(—); 7-5(—)


Washington 2010-17 recruiting: —; 23(25); 21(29); 18(19); —; —; —; 23(16)

Washington 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-6(—); 7-6(—); 12-2(4); 10-2(11)


Utah 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; —; —; —; —; —; 25(25)

Utah 2014-17 records/ranks: 9-4(21/20); 10-3(17/16); 9-4(23/21); 6-6(—)


UCLA 2010-17 recruiting: 8(16); —; 13(19); 8(6); 18(6); 13(4); 12(18); 21(13)

UCLA 2014-17 records/ranks: 10-3(10); 8-5(—); 4-8(—); 6-6(—)


ASU 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; —; —; 21(26); 20(25); 32(22); —

ASU 2014-17 records/ranks: 10-3(14/12); 6-7(—); 5-7(—); 7-5(—)


Cal 2010-17 recruiting: 11(6); 17(12); 23(27); —; —; —; —; —

Cal 2014-17 records/ranks: 5-7(—); 8-5(—); 5-7(—); 5-7(—)


ACC:

Clemson 2010-17 recruiting: 19(21); 8(16); 14(13); 14(20); 13(17); 4(11); 6(7); 22(4)

Clemson 2014-17 records/ranks: 10-3(15); 14-1(2); 14-1(1); 12-1(1)


Florida State 2010-17 recruiting: 10(10); 2(9); 6(2); 10(11); 4(8); 3(1); 2(4); 5(5)

Florida State 2014-17 records/ranks: 13-1(6/5); 10-3(14); 10-3(8); 6-6(—)


VTech 2010-17 recruiting: 23(19); —; 22(23); 23(19); 25(31); 24(24); —; —

VTech 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-6(—); 7-6(—); 10-4(16); 9-3(22)


Miami 2010-17 recruiting: 16(20); —; 9(17); 20(17); 12(19); —; 23(19); 11(15)

Miami 2014-17 records/ranks: 6-7(—); 8-5(—); 9-4(23/20); 10-2(10)


Louisville 2010-17 recruiting: —; 29(22); —; —; —; —; —; —

Louisville 2014-17 records/ranks: 9-4(24); 8-5(—); 9-4(21/20); 8-4(—)


UNC 2010-17 recruiting: —; 16(21); —; —; 23(21); 28(22); 22(24); 30(25)

UNC 2014-17 records/ranks: 6-7(—); 11-3(15); 8-5(—); 3-9(—)


Pitt 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; 47(25); —; —; —; —; —

Pitt 2014-17 records/ranks: 6-7(—); 8-5(23/—); 8-5(22/—); 5-7(—)


Virginia 2010-17 recruiting: —; 25(32); —; —; —; —; —; —

Virginia 2014-17 records/ranks: 5-7(—); 4-8(—); 2-10(—); 6-6(—)


B1G:

Ohio State 2010-17 recruiting: 25(15); 11(14); 4(5); 2(4); 3(2); 9(10); 3(2); 2(1)

Ohio State 2014-17 records/ranks: 14-1(1); 12-1(4); 11-2(6); 11-2(5)


MSU 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; —; 40(17); 22(18); 22(16); 18(15); —

MSU 2014-17 records/ranks: 11-2(5); 12-2(6); 3-9(—); 9-3(16)


Michigan 2010-17 recruiting: 20(22); 21(18); 7(9); 5(7); 31(15); 50(18); 4(7); 4(8)

Michigan 2014-17 records/ranks: 5-7(—); 10-3(11/12); 10-3(10); 8-4(—)


Penn State 2010-17 recruiting: 12(6); 35(23); —; —; 24(23); 15(13); 21(20); 12(12)

Penn State 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-6(—); 7-6(—); 11-3(5); 10-2(9)


Nebraska 2010-17 recruiting: 22(33); 15(13); 25(18); 17(24); —; —; 24(25); 20(25)

Nebraska 2014-17 records/ranks: 9-4(—); 6-7(—); 9-4(—); 4-8(—)


Maryland 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; —; —; —; —; —; 17(24)

Maryland 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-6(—); 3-9(—); 6-7(—); 4-8(—)


Rutgers 2010-17 recruiting: —; —; 24(20); —; —; —; —; —

Rutgers 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-5(—); 4-8(—); 2-10(—); 4-8(—)

***Notice there’s no Bucky here. No one in the B10 West can recruit worth a crap this decade. The B10 West may be the worst division out of all the Power 5 conferences in college football. B12 worst conference, though.


B12:

Oklahoma 2010-17 recruiting: 7(8); 14(3); 11(11); 15(30); 15(22); 14(7); 16(16); 7(10)

Oklahoma 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-5(—); 11-2(5); 11-2(5/3); 12-1(2)


TCU 2010-17 recruiting: —; 26(26); —; —; —; —; 20(21); —

TCU 2014-17 records/ranks: 12-1(3); 11-2(7); 6-7(—); 10-3(15)


WVU 2010-17 recruiting: 27(25); —; —; 25(46); —; —; —; —

WVU 2014-17 records/ranks: 7-6(—); 8-5(—); 10-3(17/18); 7-5(—)


Texas 2010-17 recruiting: 3(2); 3(2); 2(7); 24(8); 20(24); 12(9); 11(11); 31(16)

Texas 2014-17 records/ranks: 6-7(—); 5-7(—); 5-7(—); 6-6(—)


Texas Tech 2010-17 recruiting: —; 20(20); —; —; —; —; —; —

Texas Tech 2014-17 records/ranks: 4-8(—); 7-6(—); 5-7(—); 6-6(—)


Independents:

Notre Dame 2010-17 recruiting: 14(12); 10(10); 20(10); 3(2); 11(11); 11(8); 13(10); 13(16)

Notre Dame 2014-17 records/ranks: 8-5(—); 10-3(12/11); 4-8(—); 9-3(14)

 

[bojihawk44]

Somewhere, kilroy just came.

 

[Suterman]

That's a lot of work, thanks. But would love to see Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota and Purdue.

 

[Eternal Return]

That's a lot of work, thanks. But would love to see Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota and Purdue.

I'll leave that for someone else to do. Look at it now, I should have done a separate post for each conference. But then again, I wanted to show all of them together for perspective. It does help me understand why Iowa has done so poorly in bowl games for the last 7 years. Oklahoma, LSU, Tennessee, Stanford, and Florida. Even if some of those teams underperformed in a few of those seasons, they were still loaded with much more talent than Iowa and had a month to prepare to get on the same page. Anyhoo...

 

[Eternal Return]

Somewhere, kilroy just came.

lol

 

[Eternal Return]

Okay, to make the information above more useful, a brief analysis by team:

SEC

Alabama analysis: You could almost argue they’ve underperformed compared to their recruiting rankings until you consider how many early departures to the NFL they have every year.

Georgia analysis: Yes, they had a coaching change a couple years ago, but recruiting consistently between 5-12 in the country? Sure, the SEC is deep, but I’d call that underperforming. New coach seems to have them on an upswing, though.

LSU analysis: Well, that’s not good. I know, another coaching change program, but with recruiting talent like that any halfway decent coach should be in or near the top 10 just about every year.

Auburn analysis: What? Terrible. Worse than Georgia and LSU in underperformance.

Texas A&M analysis: On first glance, this seems horrible. But look at the recruiting rankings of all the other SEC teams they are competing against. Even so, I would expect at least one year ranked in the top 25 and at least one year with fewer than 5 losses. Still, they had only one top 10 class in a conference that is loaded (at the top) with top 10 classes.

S. Carolina analysis: Something’s wrong, that’s for sure.

Florida analysis: Yikes. Yes, two coaching changes between 2014 and now, but to underperform this badly because one QB (Grier) got suspended and then transferred? Yeah, they were right to fire McElwain. No wonder Scott Frost chose Nebraska.

Miss St. analysis: I gotta say, I’m impressed. Hell, their top appp ranking was 25 and the next highest was 30. Very good results considering recruiting rankings. And, yes, I’m beginning to see chinks in the recruiting rankings armor in terms of being able to judge how good a particular team (TEAM) is.

Ole Miss analysis: 2014 and 2015 seemed to outperform rankings, 2016 and 2017 seemed to underperform. Their SEC competition is tough (supposedly, though I’m beginning to wonder), but they’ve really fallen off.

Tenn analysis: What a joke. Program fail.

Arkansas analysis: Okay, suddenly I don’t think Bielema did such a bad job coaching. He did a poor job recruiting in the SEC, but Arkansas should have stayed in the B12 anyway. Tough to recruit to Arkansas now that they are in the SEC (not that it was great before). So it appeared Bielema’s teams just sucked, but he probably performed about as well as could be expected given how his talent stacked up against the rest of the SEC. I have to admit, I was surprised by this. Bret is a donut away from death, but he did a better job than I thought he had.

Kentucky analysis: It’s amazing that they’ve had winning records the past two years. It’s Kentucky and while their recruiting isn’t up to SEC snuff, they’ve done a decent job.

Vanderbilt analysis: They are who we thought they were. I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise, but they’ve had better recruiting than more than half of the B10. They are cursed to play in the SEC. They’d probably be a middle of the pack program in any other conference. I’m beginning to give the rankings a bit more credit again.

***Hate to say it, but there may be some truth to SEC teams beating the crap out of each other during their conference seasons.


PAC12

USC analysis: Yes, coaching changes, but come on USC. Look at those appp rankings! Coaching changes, injuries, attrition, whatever; USC has crapped the bed for years now. Ridiculous.

Stanford analysis: David Shaw can recruit AND coach. Impressive. Very impressive. Now that’s a healthy football program.

Oregon analysis: Once they lost Chip Kelly and then lost the recruits that stayed after he left, the team has crapped on itself. The PAC12 is utterly mediocre and this is the best you can do? No wonder they have coaches leaving. Didn’t some team just hire Oregon’s coach this offseason? Geezuz, that was stupid.

Washington analysis: Wow. Now that’s how you outperform recruiting rankings. Wow.

Utah analysis: Wow. Okay, never mind, THIS is how you outperform recruiting rankings. PAC12 has some overachievers. Or it’s just a crap conference outside of Stanford and USC.

UCLA analysis: Pitiful. Now wonder they fired Mora. That’s Tennessee bad right there. Maybe worse.

ASU analysis: Eh. Looks like they should start improving with their recent classes. That 10-3 year was pretty damn good. Otherwise, about what you’d expect, I suppose.

Cal analysis: Hmmm. Pretty disappointing. It would suck to be a Cal fan.


ACC

Clemson: DING, DING, DING! We have a winner, folks. That’s blow your doors off good. Dabo for president!

Florida State analysis: Until this year, i guess you could say they were within their range. How could losing Francois kill a team this badly, though? Weird that Fisher left FSU to take the A&M job. Expectations won’t be as high, I guess. Too much of a fishbowl at FSU? I don’t know, but the last three recruiting classes are top 5 overall and appp. Depending on attrition, the new coach should be set up pretty well depending on how well they fit schemes. Hell, even if they don’t technically fit, how can you lose with so much young talent about to come of age? Interesting.

VTech analysis: Well, Beamer retired whoever is there now seems to be doing pretty well with Beamer’s leftovers. Time will tell if he can recruit and maintain 9 and 10 win seasons.

Miami analysis: Eh. I guess it’s okay. Should continue improving over time with Georgia’s old head coach, but they’ll probably finish third fiddle to FSU and Clemson most years. We shall see.

Louisville analysis: Impressive. They always seem to have stud QBs. Cardinal fans shouldn’t be complaining about coaching. Maybe recruiting, but not coaching. But maybe not even recruiting. Hell, I don’t care what the overall rankings are when you’ve got Lamar Jackson. I think Teddy Bridgewater used to be their QB, too.

UNC analysis: Bored by this team. They had Trubisky, he left, now they suck even with decent recruiting.

Pitt analysis: The Iowa of the ACC—they outperform recruiting rankings, but never by too much.

Virginia analysis: I included them because they had the one year with a ranked recruiting class, but they suck. Doesn’t matter, they just suck.


B10

Ohio State analysis: About what you’d expect given their annual attrition to the NFL. They’re always right there around the top 5. Their fans will complain they aren’t Alabama, they’ll gnash their teeth over Clemson, but they never pull a USC or FSU.

MSU analysis: Had the weird year last year, but otherwise performing way above recruiting rankings. I hate Dantonio, but there’s no doubt he gets the most out of his players almost every year. I doubt anyone anywhere understands what happened last year, but unfortunately he’s back on course.

Michigan analysis: Underperforming, but Harbaugh is still relatively new. His two most recent classes are climbing closer to the Urban level. Not quite, though. So, for now, underperforming. Not by a ton, although the turd who came before Harbaugh was atrocious.

Penn State analysis: The pedophiles are making a comeback and currently outperforming recruiting rankings. Not good. Don’t like this at all. No one does.

Nebraska analysis: The Tennessee/UCLA of the Big Ten. Pitiful underperformance. Pitiful. Was really hoping that Riley would stay there forever.

Maryland analysis: Yes, they’ve sucked. If they didn’t lose 3 QBs this year they might have been pretty decent. And the 2017 recruiting class is better than any class in the B10 West over the past 8 years (except for Nebraska, which sort of doesn’t count because they’ve been Tennessee themselves in the foot for a while)

Rutgers analysis: They suck. I included them here because I was surprised they had a ranked class and a winning record the year before they cam to the B10. I think they made a big mistake joining the B10. Actually, i think the B10 made a big mistake letting them join. Completely dysfunctional relationship between the conference and the school.

***Notice there’s no Bucky here and yet they are dominating the West even through three coaching changes from 2010-2017. I hate it. It’s unacceptable, but no one in the B10 West can recruit worth a crap this decade. The B10 West may be the worst division out of all the Power 5 conferences in college football. If the B12 had a north division then they’d undoubtedly win that award going away, but they don’t so it’s probably the B10 West.


B12:

Oklahoma analysis: For all the grief they get, they’ve been outperforming their recruiting rankings for a long time. Of course, they play in the B12 so they actually haven’t. The B12 is clearly the worst conference in college football, but the B10 West—I hate to say it, but I think it’s proven to be true—may be the worst DIVISION in college football.

TCU analysis: Impressive. Very impressive. Even within the B12 it’s impressive.

WVU analysis: Not bad. About as good as anyone could expect, I think. It’s the B12. It’s just a bad conference.

Texas analysis: Okay, forget everything I said about Tennessee and UCLA. Texas has been the worst program in the country for years when it comes to the gap between recruiting and on-field performance. Charlie Strong gets my vote for worst FBS college football coach of the 21st century. Here’s hoping Scott Frost can somehow overtake him.

Texas Tech analysis: I felt bad for the B12 so I included this perennial high-scoring no-defense team. In spite of the PlayStation offense, they are mediocre at best.


Independents:

Notre Dame analysis: not quite a dumpster fire, but that program hasn’t had any stability since Lou Holtz was there (never mind his crooked ways). You almost have to put effort into failing at Notre Dame. Impressively, their coaching carousel works hard to disappoint. So sad … if you’re Irish, anyway. They are right not to join a conference, though. They’d be worse than Nebraska if they did.