Gophers tied for 100th place in recruiting??!!

Donate To GopherHole
D

dinkything

Active member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
594
Reaction score
43
Points
28
Been hearing positive comments this weekend from Jerry Kill, Sid, & Dave Mona on Gopher recruiting, so I decided to check out Scout's average star rating...

Looks like the Gophers are currently tied for 100th place.

I don't put a huge amount of emphasis on data like this, since I believe Jerry Kill can coach his guys up.

Two questions I would have are ...Who are the last 5 Gophers invited to the NFL combine in Indy?

And who are the next 5?


* Avg. Star Rankings as of 12/16/2012 4:00 PM ET

http://minnesota.scout.com/a.z?s=176&p=9&c=14&yr=2013

T76. Eastern Michigan 11 MAC 2.27
T76. Louisiana 11 Sun Belt 2.27
78. Tulsa 17 Conf USA 2.24
T79. UCF 13 Conf USA 2.23
T79. Rice 13 Conf USA 2.23
81. Ball State 18 MAC 2.22
82. Troy 5 Sun Belt 2.20
83. San Diego State 17 MWC 2.18
T84. Arkansas St. 18 Sun Belt 2.17
T84. Marshall 6 Conf USA 2.17
86. South Florida 19 Big East 2.16
87. Ohio 7 MAC 2.14
T88. SMU 24 Conf USA 2.13
T88. Western Michigan 8 MAC 2.13
90. Iowa State 17 Big 12 2.12
T91. Tulane 19 Conf USA 2.11
T91. Western KY 9 Sun Belt 2.11
T91. Northern Illinois 9 MAC 2.11
T91. So. Alabama 9 Sun Belt 2.11
95. Colorado State 10 MWC 2.10
96. North Texas 11 Sun Belt 2.09
97. Bowling Green 12 MAC 2.08
98. So. Miss 14 Conf USA 2.07
99. Navy 17 Indep 2.06
T100. Minnesota 14 Big Ten 2.00
T100. Utah State 10 WAC 2.00
T100. Akron 6 MAC 2.00
T100. Mid. Tenn. Sun Belt 2.00
T100. ULM 8 Sun Belt 2.00
T100. Buffalo 7 MAC 2.00
T100. UTEP 6 Conf USA 2.00
T100. Kent State 6 MAC 2.00
T100. Nevada 3 MWC 2.00
T100. Army 3 Indep 2.00
 

all depends on the service. 61 on Rivals, 75 on 247.
 

Scout has them #75 Overall..Not Avg Star http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2013

70. Houston 15 Conf USA 776 0 0 0 7 10 4 1 12 3 2.33
71. Tulsa 17 Conf USA 735 0 0 0 4 9 8 0 17 0 2.24
72. Syracuse 12 Big East 705 0 0 0 5 5 7 0 7 5 2.42
73. SDSU 17 MWC 702 0 0 0 4 8 9 0 14 3 2.18
74. ECU 13 Conf USA 699 0 0 1 5 7 6 0 13 0 2.54
75. Minnesota 14 Big Ten 677 0 0 0 6 6 8 0 12 2 2.00
76. Ball State 18 MAC 667 0 0 0 4 7 10 1 18 0 2.22
77. Cincinnati 13 Big East 661 0 0 0 4 8 5 0 13 0 2.31
78. Purdue 10 Big Ten 653 0 0 0 6 4 6 0 10 0 2.60
79. Temple 11 Big East 582 0 0 0 3 6 5 0 11 0 2.27
80. Miami (Oh) 20 MAC 581 0 0 0 1 10 9 1 20 0 1.95

Rivals has them #61 http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2013/all/all
 


Scout is the worst service and almost always ranks the Gophers lower than Rivals and ESPN. Last Gophers invited to the combine: Tripplett,Campbell,Lawrence,Decker...cant recall if Traye Simmons was invited. Seems like I am missing someone obvious.
 


Was trying to figure out which Gophers are currently on NFL Teams - I could come up with 3 active and 1 practice squad members. Have I missed anyone?

Decker (DEN)
Sherels (MN)
Spaeth (CHI)
Weber (TB - practice squad)

Is Triplett still around?
 


would u prefer the team went 3-9 this year and had a recruiting class rating of 34 or 6-6 and a recruiting rating of 75/100.
 

wait!what? said:
would u prefer the team went 3-9 this year and had a recruiting class rating of 34 or 6-6 and a recruiting rating of 75/100.
Click to expand...

I (and I am only speaking for me) don't think it's a good thing to look at it that way. It is rare that a program can finish below 50th in the rankings consistently and be competitive over the long term.
 



going yr to yr with that format would = lower end BT but I was speaking of just this past year. Trying to assure myself that some posters don't get to choose both sides of the same coin. BTW 50 lb: Merry Christmas!
 

Sounds good wait!what? Hopefully winning ways will improve recruiting and we can get onto and stay upon solid turf.

Merry Christmas to you as well!
 

I am in full agreement that recruiting matters and that the recruiting rankings are worth something. If you continuously are signing players who no one else in a BCS conference covets, it is nearly impossible to win regularily.

However, "team rankings" are kind of bogus. It just goes into the calculations.

For instance...Miami has 11 players committed. Three of them are 4 star players, seven of them are 3 star players and 1 player has not been ranked yet. In contrast, BYU has 29 commits, of those 29 players....1 of them is a 4 star, 8 3 stars, 15 2 star players and 5 haven't been ranked. Yet, BYU has a higher team rating than Miami.

The biggest thing to look at is offer lists and your average star ranking. Our class this year will be ranked much worse than it really is because it will be small.
 

What is our standing with teams that have the same number or fewer schollies to give as we do? It is hard to control for that variable when looking at full field of 120 BSFootball level teams.
 



With as far forward as the recruiting process is, this years 6-6 record, will effect next years recruiting more than this years. It's last years 3-9 record that is the biggest factor in this class. With N IL getting into the BCS and this years 6-6 finish we will have a lot more highly ranked kids give us a look. It's a process, you play better then you recruit, and then based on that, improve your recruiting.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I am in full agreement that recruiting matters and that the recruiting rankings are worth something. If you continuously are signing players who no one else in a BCS conference covets, it is nearly impossible to win regularily.

However, "team rankings" are kind of bogus. It just goes into the calculations.

For instance...Miami has 11 players committed. Three of them are 4 star players, seven of them are 3 star players and 1 player has not been ranked yet. In contrast, BYU has 29 commits, of those 29 players....1 of them is a 4 star, 8 3 stars, 15 2 star players and 5 haven't been ranked. Yet, BYU has a higher team rating than Miami.

The biggest thing to look at is offer lists and your average star ranking. Our class this year will be ranked much worse than it really is because it will be small.
Click to expand...

Countdown to the stars matter/don't matter argument beginning again in 3...2...1...
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I am in full agreement that recruiting matters and that the recruiting rankings are worth something. If you continuously are signing players who no one else in a BCS conference covets, it is nearly impossible to win regularily.

However, "team rankings" are kind of bogus. It just goes into the calculations.

For instance...Miami has 11 players committed. Three of them are 4 star players, seven of them are 3 star players and 1 player has not been ranked yet. In contrast, BYU has 29 commits, of those 29 players....1 of them is a 4 star, 8 3 stars, 15 2 star players and 5 haven't been ranked. Yet, BYU has a higher team rating than Miami.

The biggest thing to look at is offer lists and your average star ranking. Our class this year will be ranked much worse than it really is because it will be small.
Click to expand...

You can't even really look at average star ranking all that reliably. Like on Rivals, for example. 3 stars are all over the place. But to have a 5.7, borderline 4-star guy and a 5.5, no BCS offers, barely a 3 star kid are completely different. Yet, for average stars, they're the same. One thing I like about our class is we're starting to pick up some more highly touted guys, and getting visits from kids who have other comparable options. If I'm not mistaken, like 10 of our current 14 commits have/had BCS offers. That's not a bad percentage for us at all, and bodes well for Kill's crew and their recruiting chops in the future.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I am in full agreement that recruiting matters and that the recruiting rankings are worth something. If you continuously are signing players who no one else in a BCS conference covets, it is nearly impossible to win regularily.

However, "team rankings" are kind of bogus. It just goes into the calculations.

For instance...Miami has 11 players committed. Three of them are 4 star players, seven of them are 3 star players and 1 player has not been ranked yet. In contrast, BYU has 29 commits, of those 29 players....1 of them is a 4 star, 8 3 stars, 15 2 star players and 5 haven't been ranked. Yet, BYU has a higher team rating than Miami.

The biggest thing to look at is offer lists and your average star ranking. Our class this year will be ranked much worse than it really is because it will be small.
Click to expand...

Rivals rankings prove this out. http://rivals.yahoo.com/minnesota/football/recruiting/teamrank/2013/BIG10/all

Illinois has 26 commits with an average star ranking of 2.81. Rivals ranks their recruiting class 3rd in the Big Ten.
Minnesota has 14 commits with an avg star ranking of 2.79. Rivals ranks our recruiting class 11th in the conference.

A lot of weight for the team rankings is given to the number of commits you have.
 

Why Rankings Are Important

If we didn't have them what would we argue about during "dead periods" like now? Besides it is a great topic because you can say thing that you said the last time a recruiting string was started and nobody seems to notice or care. That is why it is the world's longest running soap opera.
 


They need to expand the number of star ratings. It seems like the three star section is too bloated. Go 10 stars. New 10 star = old 5 star. New 9 & 8 star = old 4 star. New 7-4 star = old 3 star. 3 - 1 = old 2 star. Do people even get 1 star?
 

CentralGopher said:
Countdown to the stars matter/don't matter argument beginning again in 3...2...1...
Click to expand...

Lol I agree. The key point to these ranking systems is, if we have a a poorly rated class the experts don't have a clue or kill knows how to find a diamond in the rough. If we are rated highly the experts finally know what they are talking about.
 

John Galt said:
Rivals rankings prove this out. http://rivals.yahoo.com/minnesota/football/recruiting/teamrank/2013/BIG10/all

Illinois has 26 commits with an average star ranking of 2.81. Rivals ranks their recruiting class 3rd in the Big Ten.
Minnesota has 14 commits with an avg star ranking of 2.79. Rivals ranks our recruiting class 11th in the conference.

A lot of weight for the team rankings is given to the number of commits you have.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely true. Rivals recently changed their ranking system from a complex, secret formula to one they've now published here: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=880&CID=1364602

To highlight info pertinent to your points:
- The number of commits only counts up to 20, so 6 for Illinois do not contribute to the ranking. But obviously having more guys of the same star caliber gives you a higher probability (by chance) that more of them will work out to be good players, so there should be some weight to the numbers. That said, comparing a 4-5 year average score would be interesting to see, to account for years with small classes.

- Rivals rating (not star rating) is the main determinant of the score, so there can be a big differentiation between low and high 3 stars. If you have say 10 low 3-stars (5.5) you will get 600 points, and if you have 10 high 3 stars (5.7) you get 900 points. That's a huge difference.
 

lakesgopher said:
Lol I agree. The key point to these ranking systems is, if we have a a poorly rated class the experts don't have a clue or kill knows how to find a diamond in the rough. If we are rated highly the experts finally know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what is going on.

The discussion of Kill finding diamonds in the rough is simply another aspect about our team. The recruiting rankings are what they are, but they don't show the entire story. Now, this is coming from someone who follows recruiting and even recruiting rankings pretty closely.

The entire picture of trying to analyze how much talent is coming into the program is done on multiple levels and one of those levels is simply the recruiting and recruiting rankings. However, you'd be silly to dismiss things like attrition, analyzing who actually enrolls in the school, size of the class, fit to the scheme and the coach's ability to find productive players who aren't as well recruited.

Now, when someone says that Coach Kill does a nice job of finding diamonds in the rough, that isn't to dismiss recruiting rankings (or vice versa). When you look at recruiting and try to figure out how much talent we have coming into the program it is vital to look at all of the factors.
 

Catechol said:
This is not entirely true. Rivals recently changed their ranking system from a complex, secret formula to one they've now published here: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=880&CID=1364602

To highlight info pertinent to your points:
- The number of commits only counts up to 20, so 6 for Illinois do not contribute to the ranking. But obviously having more guys of the same star caliber gives you a higher probability (by chance) that more of them will work out to be good players, so there should be some weight to the numbers. That said, comparing a 4-5 year average score would be interesting to see, to account for years with small classes.

- Rivals rating (not star rating) is the main determinant of the score, so there can be a big differentiation between low and high 3 stars. If you have say 10 low 3-stars (5.5) you will get 600 points, and if you have 10 high 3 stars (5.7) you get 900 points. That's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

It's not a direct formula of "stars X players" but the size of the class still plays a major role. JG's point illustrating the difference between Illinois and MN is STILL important when analyzing this recruiting class.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
It's not a direct formula of "stars X players" but the size of the class still plays a major role. JG's point illustrating the difference between Illinois and MN is STILL important when analyzing this recruiting class.
Click to expand...

I acknowledged that. I was just clarifying that they're not adding up the #s for all 26 of Illinois' commits, which does make some difference in his illustration.

Furthermore, I think it is a valid point within each recruiting year to give some weight to class size, because:
1) It means more potential contributors 4 years down the road.
2) Quality can still make up for quantity - if you have 14 schollies and are successful in landing all your top 4*/high-3* targets, you can still be at least equivalent in points to a school that has 20 low-mid 3* commits.
 

I think the fact that Kill and company have been together so long and have many recruiting connections is a big plus and has helped them find underrated players. Look at the the 2 star rated players we signed according to Rivals from last year and then look at how many of those played Scott Ekpe, Isaac Fruechte, Jeremy Baltazar, Alex Keith, and Eric Murray. Ekpe saw a lot of action at defensive tackle which is amazing considering he was a true freshman. Alex Keith came on as the year progressed and made some nice plays including a sack. Baltazar and the other juco's helped the defensive backs make a huge improvement from the previous year. Kill also seems to good job evaluating kids at camp. Eric Murray comes to mind as someone who was considered a wide receiver by the recruiting services but our staff saw his potential at DB.

Of the 2 star rated players only Ben Lauer, Mitch Leidner, Yoshoub Timms did not see action which is kind of amazing when you think about it. I also believe the staff is quite high on Lauer as well as the two other freshman lineman, all of whom red shirted. Up until our last recruit our average stars sat at 2.83. This is actually quite good. But juco recruits typically are not ranked or get few stars from Rivals which drag down the average star rating.
 

Nate said:
They need to expand the number of star ratings. It seems like the three star section is too bloated. Go 10 stars. New 10 star = old 5 star. New 9 & 8 star = old 4 star. New 7-4 star = old 3 star. 3 - 1 = old 2 star. Do people even get 1 star?
Click to expand...

Rosemountain is the only person I know to actually get one. Actually Zach Mottla, Sahr Ngekia, Gabe Mezzenga, Caleb Bak, Cameron Botticelli, and Dave Ramlet all received 1 star. I personally find it gratifying to know that Zach, Caleb, and Cameron all stated at least some of the games last fall. These guys are some of the real heroes of this team. Another 1 star player was a guy named A.J. Barker. So I guess Rosemountain is not in such bad company.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
That's not at all what is going on.

The discussion of Kill finding diamonds in the rough is simply another aspect about our team. The recruiting rankings are what they are, but they don't show the entire story. Now, this is coming from someone who follows recruiting and even recruiting rankings pretty closely.

The entire picture of trying to analyze how much talent is coming into the program is done on multiple levels and one of those levels is simply the recruiting and recruiting rankings. However, you'd be silly to dismiss things like attrition, analyzing who actually enrolls in the school, size of the class, fit to the scheme and the coach's ability to find productive players who aren't as well recruited.

Now, when someone says that Coach Kill does a nice job of finding diamonds in the rough, that isn't to dismiss recruiting rankings (or vice versa). When you look at recruiting and try to figure out how much talent we have coming into the program it is vital to look at all of the factors.
Click to expand...

People have been making excuses for the recruiting rankings since it became popular. I don't know what message board you follow but here on gopherhole people say rivals, scout, espn don't have a clue on low ranked players when they commit to Minnesota and if we have a highly rated recruit people believe its justified. I think the ratings are pretty legit most of the time and hopefully kill and staff get the most out of them. Otherwise it's going to be a rough couple years
 

For those of you looking for something more granular than 2 - 5 stars, I'd suggest 247. Not only do they give kids a 70 - 100 rating, but they actually publish a composite score from the 4 biggest recruiting services (Scout, Rivals, 247, ESPN.)

I think that for the class rankings they should take your average rating and multiply it by the number of commits you have and then divide by the number of scholarships you have.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom