Sounds awesome! I'll get us started.
Michael row your boat ashore, hallelujah.............
Where did Kirk Ferentz' recruiting turn for the best?
- Thread starter icu81222
- Start date
Michael row your boat ashore, hallelujah.............
Great choice! I hope KF proves me wrong, this is one subject I do not mind being made look like a fool. I unfortunately think I won't be.
247 is mickey mouse, but even so, 3 star is average. Iowa is essentially competing with/as the top 3 teams in each Division in the B1G. This is where we should be comparing head to head for recruits. Iowa will not be entirely successful until it out-recruits its opponents.
This thread started out as an optimistic view of recruiting, but has now slid over to the pessimistic side of things. There is a pessimistic thread already out there, guys, so please blast away on that one.
The more I learn about the ranking (star) systems, the less confident I am in them. I'm not saying that they're invalid, but it appears that the 4 and 5 star ranks are based on popularity ( how many offers a kid has) rather than sheer ability. To me, the key thing is that UI staff appear to have researched each player very well, selecting guys they think will fit in well. It doesn't matter how good the player is....if they don't have a personality that meshes well with the program them they won't stick around long.
I'll stick my neck out and say that I think this is a good, but not outstanding, class as of now. I think it's better than the past few years. I've watched quite a bit of the new recruits vids, and think that several will contribute meaningfully to the program.
The more I learn about the ranking (star) systems, the less confident I am in them. I'm not saying that they're invalid, but it appears that the 4 and 5 star ranks are based on popularity ( how many offers a kid has) rather than sheer ability. To me, the key thing is that UI staff appear to have researched each player very well, selecting guys they think will fit in well. It doesn't matter how good the player is....if they don't have a personality that meshes well with the program them they won't stick around long.
I'll stick my neck out and say that I think this is a good, but not outstanding, class as of now. I think it's better than the past few years. I've watched quite a bit of the new recruits vids, and think that several will contribute meaningfully to the program.
Hell, Tom Lemming essentially started the star rating system and even he says it is now a joke. He admits it is heavily influenced by "who offered " and isn't all that accurate
He also says that teams will offer based on who offered without even knowing much about a kid. That is not wise either
He also says that teams will offer based on who offered without even knowing much about a kid. That is not wise either
Ok, first of all, 247 is run by the guys that developed Rivals and then sold it to Yahoo. They know what they're doing, not the yayhoos at yahoo that they sold it to. Secondly, the 247comp. rating averages out all the main recruiting sites, so it is undeniably the most comprehensive look at what ALL the analysts think of a recruit. Thirdly, who are the top 3 teams in each division? Doesn't it change? I (and I'm sure the coaches don't) don't even know what "comparing head to head for recruits" even means. And lastly, your final sentence is so profoundly ignorant I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will just say that by your twisted reasoning, we should just look at the recruiting stars of the starters of the opponent prior to the game and declare a winner. Does anybody ever try to educate themselves on a subject before coming on here and making idiotic comments. Your ignorance of how colleges recruit is glaring.
"You're not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." - Harlan Ellison
No. IMO, if people are going to argue recruiting based on ratings they should learn what the ratings mean. 3 star does NOT mean average. 3 star players have pro potential, but will need to be developed before having an impact.
From Rivals, the official definition of a "3 star":
5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team.
Watch out Jazzcat, I'm sure there is a lot more too it and world most knowledgeable man is going to set you straight in 3,2,1...
none of the 2016 class will need to be instant starters and will have 3-4 years to develop. also maybe someone can tell me why O$U Needed this many commits in each class with all those stud recruits.
2011 24
2012 25
2013 24
2014 23
2015 27
can you say creaning those that don't perform?
2011 24
2012 25
2013 24
2014 23
2015 27
can you say creaning those that don't perform?
In those years 5 years they had 12 more total recruits than Iowa got. From the 2011 class 4 have graduated from Iowa and 10 Ohio State players from their 2011 class either left for the NFL early or graduated, and 1 of the 24 commits in that class (Ejuan Price) asked for and was granted his release in June before he even reported for camp bringing the total up to 11 guys that weren't pushed out. So in 5 years a total of 5 extra players have left Ohio State with eligibility remaining than Iowa. Unless you think Kirk and the staff are creaning I wouldn't say 5 extra players in 5 years means that they are creaning at Ohio St.
As of 6-29, Iowa has a total of 20 commits that have a combined 21 offers from Big 5 conference teams not named Iowa. Of those 21 offers from Big 5 conference teams not named Iowa, Wisconsin is the only team who is relevant on a national level and the only team to win 9 games or more last year (Most consider 9-10 wins a very good season). I sure hope this strategy of offering these late bloomer guys early works out or this program will sink from 6-7 wins on average to 4 wins on average, especially when Iowa's schedule isn't so easy like the past couple years and this upcoming year.
I was interested to see when it turned for the Oregon Ducks cause prior to 2008 they were not good. It corresponded of course when Chip Kelly came in 2009 but it also corresponded with the breaking ground and building of there new facility which is amazing. I wonder if the new facility is really cranking it up for us? Seems like it.
Yes the star system is heavily influenced by "who offered " but it is also influenced by who went to what camps, namely the recruiting network type camps.
The star system as a whole does covers more recruits now a days but it is also is evaluated different than it use to be imo (Lemming admits to that). It is less on your abilities and more on who recruits you and again what camps you attended. There are still so many kids that are very talented that are ignored in the network star system until they actually verbal to a school (then they are generally just given their random 2*/3* status). A kid can be a two-time 1st team all-state selection from Minnesota or Wisconsin and still be unknown by the networks if they again don't go to the right camps.
The star system as a whole does covers more recruits now a days but it is also is evaluated different than it use to be imo (Lemming admits to that). It is less on your abilities and more on who recruits you and again what camps you attended. There are still so many kids that are very talented that are ignored in the network star system until they actually verbal to a school (then they are generally just given their random 2*/3* status). A kid can be a two-time 1st team all-state selection from Minnesota or Wisconsin and still be unknown by the networks if they again don't go to the right camps.
Stars is not an exact science. It is the best available system out there. Yes, it has it's flaws. Let's look at the other side of the story. Let's say you decide to create the best evaluation team available.
You have 3-5000 kids to evaluate, project, and rank. Are you able to find a film junkie that is going to be able to evaluate all 3000 kids, and remember each of them? Are you going to evaluate highlights only or are you going to evaluate full game films to see the strengths and weaknesses of each player...Highlights show their best plays, their potential (and are these highlights against good or bad teams?) But is the player consistent. Do they use good technique, or do they overwhelm undersized competition?
So do you hire 20 to 30 guys to fully evaluate these game films. How many camps do send live evaluators to? How do you compare one camp to another? People, it is not an exact science. If you wanted them to be more thorough, who is going to pay for it? Use a little common sense of how the system works, and you will understand why they look at who offers, 40 times, heights and weights, etc.
Each college team has 4-10 people doing these evaluations. Rivals cannot afford to pay huge expenses to have a team evaluate 3-5000 kids...and find a way to charge teams and fans for their time and service. This is why the "Star System" is what it is.
You have 3-5000 kids to evaluate, project, and rank. Are you able to find a film junkie that is going to be able to evaluate all 3000 kids, and remember each of them? Are you going to evaluate highlights only or are you going to evaluate full game films to see the strengths and weaknesses of each player...Highlights show their best plays, their potential (and are these highlights against good or bad teams?) But is the player consistent. Do they use good technique, or do they overwhelm undersized competition?
So do you hire 20 to 30 guys to fully evaluate these game films. How many camps do send live evaluators to? How do you compare one camp to another? People, it is not an exact science. If you wanted them to be more thorough, who is going to pay for it? Use a little common sense of how the system works, and you will understand why they look at who offers, 40 times, heights and weights, etc.
Each college team has 4-10 people doing these evaluations. Rivals cannot afford to pay huge expenses to have a team evaluate 3-5000 kids...and find a way to charge teams and fans for their time and service. This is why the "Star System" is what it is.
It doesn't seem to bother anyone that we were listed very low among recruiting when we had very few recruits. It works both ways. I personally like that the coaching staff is getting many kids that they identified early. I think you'll see stars increase in the next few years as the new facilities take hold.
Just be prepared for Iowa to drop in the ratings as other teams gain more commitments. As already stated, the average recruit rating is not very high at this point.
Take what Lemming says with a grain of salt He is known to say whatever he thinks fans want to hear. He used to brag about seeing and rating thousands of prospects himself so it is kind of strange to claim rankings are based on who is recruiting you. For the most part (as Ferentz has said in the past about recruits) -everyone knows who the top guys are. And that is why the football powers are after those kids.
http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...llege_football_recruiting_stars_rankings.html
Take what Lemming says with a grain of salt He is known to say whatever he thinks fans want to hear. He used to brag about seeing and rating thousands of prospects himself so it is kind of strange to claim rankings are based on who is recruiting you. For the most part (as Ferentz has said in the past about recruits) -everyone knows who the top guys are. And that is why the football powers are after those kids.
http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...llege_football_recruiting_stars_rankings.html
I had thought/hoped Iowa would have filled their core needs with the current "average starred" recruits to about 20. Then focused on a few highly regarded, and needed, recruits to close out the class. But it doesn't appear that is the case... Oh well. Unfortunately, I have learned not to get my hopes up...
Still, I do like what have picked up so far, and the pace we have used.
Still, I do like what have picked up so far, and the pace we have used.
2011 top recruiting classes in Big Ten on rivals
1. Tressel
2.Pelini
3,Hoke
Now I see why KF doesn't go for the top kids.jk
This is still realllllyyy early in the recruitment process. We are at a point never previously attained during the Ferentz era (with 20 commits this early), so I'm cautiously optimistic that we can still reel in a couple of highly sought-after recruits with the few spots remaining, during the next 7 months prior to signing day.
Matt, it's been quite awhile since I've been back and I see that you have honored me with a respectful reply. 247 is BS but it's my opinion and you have yours. I am puzzled why you take issue with my statement that we must recruit competitively with the programs we must compete with on the field in the B1G. Now, let's see, which programs could those possibly be? And don't call me stupid and ignorant. I have no way of knowing your background, and frankly don't care. But I am a retired analyst, reasonably well educated, obviously. I am extremely opinionated but much prefer civil, constructive dialogue. I study college recruiting. I analyze SEC, Big 12 and B1G recruiting for comparison purposes for fun. At times I break my oath and make comments on this site based on data I have assembled.
IMO, it's not a great benchmark, in the DJIA, S&P 500 etal mold. Here's why. Let's say we have 5 teams with a recruiting class full of 3 star recruits. Simplified you could say they are all "average". But IMO it gets much interesting, meaningful - and realistic - if you recognize that each team has recruited a class of players with pro potential. Then you have to ask how well each team develops that potential, how the players "fit", how they shape the roster (depth), what position will they actually play, etc, etc.
IMO, the staff's performance results have been a mixed bag from this perspective recently. They have still shown themselves to be outstanding developers of talent, I'm skeptical of how the team has "fit" together (I'm nearly positive there were locker room issues last year), LB and RB is all the further we have to look to see depth problems, the staff still seems fairly adept at putting players in the right positions (Greg Mabin, for example). I think part of the problem as fans watching recruiting from the cheap seats is that we want to be able to define it, rank it, and benchmark it - when it's really more comparable to a crapshoot.
I want to clarify one point, as "crapshoot" isn't really want to I wanted to say. I worked in the investment world, so my point is closer to selecting a stock. When picking a stock you start with your objectives (winning), style preference (pro style offense), various parameters and measures (physical measurables), asset allocation (roster depth), intangibles (position switch, work ethic, leadership), etc, etc. You do all of your due diligence, as well as technical and fundamental analysis. BUT.....even after you've done everything in your power to make the most informed decision you can, you ultimately have no assurance of success. That's why you diversify. That's the lens through which I see recruiting.
Last edited:
Similar threads
