Gophers #12 on 247 2024 Team Recruiting with 19 Guys

Donate To GopherHole

Not a chance it lasts. Very similar to 2023, so it will probably end up with a similar rank, possibly lower. I think it's tenth in the B1G right now based on average rating.
 


60's Guy said:
Our highest rated guy is at #481 nationally. This may not last?
2024 Gopher List
Team Rankings
View attachment 25640
Click to expand...
I think everyone knows the answer to that. If you get 19 3 star recruits by early June, it’s a nice feeling to see that high class ranking but it will drop at least 20 spots, probably more if the last few recruits are not more highly ranked.
 

Good chance these guys get bumps in rating by signing day, but I agree it will end up much lower.
 


We will get a bump with a few of the players. I can't remember to many of our recruits from last year being offered by Penn State or teams in that category. My guess we will end up with 2-4 four star recruits in the end and a class in the mid-30's.
 

gophernut1 said:
We will get a bump with a few of the players. I can't remember to many of our recruits from last year being offered by Penn State or teams in that category. My guess we will end up with 2-4 four star recruits in the end and a class in the mid-30's.
Click to expand...
Mid-30's would argubly be Fleck highest ranked recruiting class. Would love that, but this class looks more like 2023's ranking-wise than Fleck's best.
 

The Gophers per-player average on 247 suggests the class will end up around 25-35 when it's all said and done, pending the total number of commits and any rating adjustments or de-commitments over the next 6 months.
 

fmlizard said:
The Gophers per-player average on 247 suggests the class will end up around 25-35 when it's all said and done, pending the total number of commits and any rating adjustments or de-commitments over the next 6 months.
Click to expand...
So you think this will be Fleck's best recruiting class?
 



Nice to see, and I think PJ has brought Minnesota to a new level of recruiting...but, yeah, its like watching a Twins baseball season - lots of excitement and guns a-blazin' early and then a step back into reality as time moves on.
 

No surprises either. Just solid class after class ranked between 30-45 nationally, they develop well and the gophers are a top 25-35 team nationally. Seems to be becoming a trend at MN. Hell of a lot better than we were over the past 30 years.
 

PMWinSTP said:
So you think this will be Fleck's best recruiting class?
Click to expand...
Possibly. Still a ways out from signing day.

Regardless of whether the final number on a website is 26 or 33 or 35 or whatever it's very encouraging to see the strong in-state recruiting. It's a good sign of building relationships with high schools and raising the reputation of the program in Minnesota.
 

fmlizard said:
The Gophers per-player average on 247 suggests the class will end up around 25-35 when it's all said and done, pending the total number of commits and any rating adjustments or de-commitments over the next 6 months.
Click to expand...
They're 38th in per-player average at this point.
 



gopherbadgerman said:
No surprises either. Just solid class after class ranked between 30-45 nationally, they develop well and the gophers are a top 25-35 team nationally. Seems to be becoming a trend at MN. Hell of a lot better than we were over the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

PJ is building MN the same way Wisconsin and Iowa were built
 



On3 not as impressed by Gopher haul. Gophers currently ranked 33.
 

BigTenGuy said:


On3 not as impressed by Gopher haul. Gophers currently ranked 33.
Click to expand...
Most teams below Gophs have maybe half the number of commitments. Barring some surprises I'm thinking the class settles in the mid-40s to low 50s range overall when all is said and done.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Most teams below Gophs have maybe half the number of commitments. Barring some surprises I'm thinking the class settles in the mid-40s to low 50s range overall when all is said and done.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that I would take the over (higher ranking) than 50 at the end of the day
 

The formula for how we should view this is simple really.

If we are high in the rankings, obviously the rankings matter and Fleck is killing it.
If we are low in the rankings, then ratings don't matter, and Fleck is finding hidden gems to coach into future NFL players.
If we get a lot of 4-stars then star ratings matter.
If we get 3-star guys with a lot of offers, then it's the offers that matter.
 

FullBanana said:
The formula for how we should view this is simple really.

If we are high in the rankings, obviously the rankings matter and Fleck is killing it.
If we are low in the rankings, then ratings don't matter, and Fleck is finding hidden gems to coach into future NFL players.
If we get a lot of 4-stars then star ratings matter.
If we get 3-star guys with a lot of offers, then it's the offers that matter.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 

FullBanana said:
The formula for how we should view this is simple really.

If we are high in the rankings, obviously the rankings matter and Fleck is killing it.
If we are low in the rankings, then ratings don't matter, and Fleck is finding hidden gems to coach into future NFL players.
If we get a lot of 4-stars then star ratings matter.
If we get 3-star guys with a lot of offers, then it's the offers that matter.
Click to expand...
That is certainly how the crowd that always looks for the negative likes to pretend that is how people view things.

The truth of the matter is that there has been a definite shift around here where people have finally realized that recruiting rankings are pretty worthless and getting hung up on them is a waste of time. Especially when you factor in the roster churn now in college sports and the simple fact that many of the recruits that sign on signing day will end up transferring before they ever see the field anyway.

Are we landing players that other Big Ten and Power 5 programs want....and can they play once they get here. That is all that matters and the second part is way more important than the first.
 

MNVCGUY said:
That is certainly how the crowd that always looks for the negative likes to pretend that is how people view things.

The truth of the matter is that there has been a definite shift around here where people have finally realized that recruiting rankings are pretty worthless and getting hung up on them is a waste of time. Especially when you factor in the roster churn now in college sports and the simple fact that many of the recruits that sign on signing day will end up transferring before they ever see the field anyway.

Are we landing players that other Big Ten and Power 5 programs want....and can they play once they get here. That is all that matters and the second part is way more important than the first.
Click to expand...

Subjectively, the bolded seems to have improved significantly (I'm too lazy to go back and look). It seems like every scholarship player recruited now has multiple Power 5 offers. It also seems like the average recruit rating in the upper 80s now has improved over the years, but maybe some of that's just player rating inflation overall?
 


Panthadad2 said:
Subjectively, the bolded seems to have improved significantly (I'm too lazy to go back and look). It seems like every scholarship player recruited now has multiple Power 5 offers. It also seems like the average recruit rating in the upper 80s now has improved over the years, but maybe some of that's just player rating inflation overall?
Click to expand...
It'd be interesting to be able to measure or get more of a grasp on the following thing:

when we're the first P5 to offer a recruit, how many other P5's then end up offering?


I feel like to your point, we would be first on a guy that had a lot of MAC level offers but no other Big Ten ever offered him, whereas now we are getting guys that have other Big Ten offers.

So did we get in there first, or did we actually go in and take them away from another Big Ten team that was first? The latter is yet another ball of wax, but also a good thing.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Subjectively, the bolded seems to have improved significantly (I'm too lazy to go back and look). It seems like every scholarship player recruited now has multiple Power 5 offers. It also seems like the average recruit rating in the upper 80s now has improved over the years, but maybe some of that's just player rating inflation overall?
Click to expand...
This has been the biggest change between the recruiting guys like Kill and Mason were doing and the recruiting that Fleck has done since coming here.

Mason and Kill focused on guys where in most cases we were clearly their best offer. Both guys were very good at finding players that fit their style of play but it was also pretty clear that we were at a talent disadvantage in a lot of games during those coaches time here.

Fleck has done a much better job recruiting kids with other legit options and getting them to come here. And he has done a great job of bringing our talent up to the level of being on par with the majority of the conference. We aren't going to keep pace with the Ohio State's of the world, but very few teams can.
 

60's Guy said:
Our highest rated guy is at #481 nationally. This may not last?
2024 Gopher List
Team Rankings
View attachment 25640
Click to expand...
Team rankings are a waste of time. They are heavily influenced by the number of recruits in the class. We will certainly drop down as some of the heavy hitters fill their classes with the high end recruits.

I also get a chuckle out of the concept that they can rank the top 500 or top 1000 players in a sport like football. How are you going to rank an interior lineman with a WR and determine who is the "better" player.

Maybe position specific rankings are a little better but even there, if they don't ever get the players on the same field together to evaluate there is really no accurate way of saying one player is going to be better than another once you get beyond the truly elite best of the best guys.

The sites are just guessing based on some camps and highlight videos. They get a lot right, they get a lot wrong. In the end they are truly trying to do something that is fundamentally impossible in ranking high school payers from all over the country playing in all different systems against all different levels of competition against each other.
 

in the era of the transfer portal, I'm not sure the ratings for HS recruits matter as much as they used to.

How many of the HS recruits at any school will stay for 4 or 5 years? How many will enter the portal and wind up playing for another program, or even multiple programs, during their careers?

and how many of these recruits will wind up getting leap-frogged on the depth chart when their school brings in a transfer at their position?

Yes - all things being equal, having better recruits is a good thing. But with the transfer portal and NIL, HS recruiting is not the only game in town anymore.
 

You shouldn't focus so much on your national rankings, especially considering how underevaluated and underdeveloped the upper midwest is compared other parts of the country. The bigger news is that it seems like the significant majority of Minnesota and Dakotas players that are P5 ready want to play for Minnesota.

Keeping the locals home is *hard* as the recruitment becomes more national. ASU has had a terrible time keeping Phoenix players. If Fleck keeps banging out 9+ win seasons, they'll keep wanting to play there.
 
Last edited:

MinnySunDevil said:
You shouldn't focus so much on your national rankings, especially considering how underevaluated and underdeveloped the upper midwest is compared other parts of the country. The bigger news is that it seems like the significant majority of Minnesota and Dakotas players that are P5 ready want to play for Minnesota.

Keeping the locals home is *hard* as the recruitment becomes more national. ASU has had a terrible time keeping Phoenix players. If Fleck keeps banging out 9+ win seasons, they'll keep wanting to play there.
Click to expand...
MN has only a few highly rated HS FB players on a yearly basis, so I'm fine with not "locking the borders". Fleck looks at MN recruiting just like past HCs, get the best when you can, look for the overlooked and develop them.
 

125 DI Football teams > if each team come December take 20 guys (portal has to skew this? #?)
but say 20...so, 20x125 is 2,500 players each recruiting season.
Our guys are all #481 to #900 something, plus we have maybe 3 guys unrated who should push somebody else down and fit into this window, once rated.
That means there are 1500 guys fitting in on teams below the guys we got. AMIRITE
Makes our recruiting seem better to me?
I do wish we would get some top 200 playmakers once in awhile...and then have them turn out to actually be exciting and explosive freshmen.
Who have we had in recent memory explode onto the scene as a freshman?
 

60's Guy said:
125 DI Football teams > if each team come December take 20 guys (portal has to skew this? #?)
but say 20...so, 20x125 is 2,500 players each recruiting season.
Our guys are all #481 to #900 something, plus we have maybe 3 guys unrated who should push somebody else down and fit into this window, once rated.
That means there are 1500 guys fitting in on teams below the guys we got. AMIRITE
Makes our recruiting seem better to me?
I do wish we would get some top 200 playmakers once in awhile...and then have them turn out to actually be exciting and explosive freshmen.
Who have we had in recent memory explode onto the scene as a freshman?
Click to expand...
I mean the obvious answer is Justin Walley (#706 nationally).

Healthy football teams don't have to rely heavily on freshman. Much better to have guys spend a few years getting physically ready in football.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom