2 Star Recruits - A look back at how they turned out

[Gopherprof]

And how did that turn out?

That's irrelevant to the fact that your statement is 100% factually wrong. You can indeed get 3 and 4 star kids both here and elsewhere without winning. We know this because it happened.

 

[MNVCGUY]

That's irrelevant to the fact that your statement is 100% factually wrong. You can indeed get 3 and 4 star kids both here and elsewhere without winning. We know this because it happened.

He probably meant to get the top recruits to look at you, you need to be a consistent winner, which would be accurate. But yeah to imply you can't get 3 and 4 star recruits without winning is false because Brewster landed his share of 4 star guys and Kill has quite a few 3 star verbals to date.

 

[nsmike]

We have 12 Rivals 3 stars committed our 10yr rolling average on Scout is 2.38 with our highest ranked class at 2.85. I realize that Rivals ranking is different than Scout but our current average is 2.26 if the unranked players get 2 stars it would be 2.65. That should be above our long term average. One of the teams with a long term recruiting average below us is Northwestern so with good coaching we can achive much better results. If you want to argue with the Northwestern example Boise's is much worse.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

There has been a considerable amount of inflation with rivals. A 2.65 average today isn't as good as a 2.65 average even 4 years ago.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

He probably meant to get the top recruits to look at you, you need to be a consistent winner, which would be accurate. But yeah to imply you can't get 3 and 4 star recruits without winning is false because Brewster landed his share of 4 star guys and Kill has quite a few 3 star verbals to date.

There are some cases of coaches who have been able to assemble good recruiting classes with some top recruits without being a consistant winner. Brew's 08 class, Vandy's class this season are examples of that.

 

[50PoundHead]

Not to be nitpicky because this is a really good post, however, I just have a couple little suggestions.

If you're going to count Buckner, Mortenson and Johnson as "good". You'd have to include Rabe (played a lot), Wells and C. Thompson as "good" as well. Rabe is self explanatory but Wells and Thompson saw significant time on special teams (like Johnson and Buckner) and with the defensive unit.

I agree with Bob. You've done some great research here, but you're an easier grader than I would be. It's almost like you need a fourth category of "starter" or "contributor."

EDIT: I typed this after reading Bob's entry and didn't page through the rest of the thread to see that you had basically done this. Good work. Very informative.