Question on our 2023 Recruiting Class: Should It Be Better Going Into PJ's 7th Year?

Donate To GopherHole
6

60's Guy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
9,789
Reaction score
4,776
Points
113
Signings are pretty much over. 247 has compiled overall team rankings with freshmen and transfers combined.
Some teams hired new coaches who had very little time to recruit their classes....yet many of them are well above us.
Iowa is a spot behind us. Illinois right behind them. All teams on the list pretty much added 27 to 33 guys with two higher exceptions noted.
Seems to me PJ would have us higher than we are?
Notables:
#21 Colorado 43 guys
#22 TCU
#23 Mich St
#29 Nebraska 40 guys
#31 Louisville
#37 Wisconsin
#40 Indiana
#46 Minnesota
#47 Iowa
#48 Illinois
What do you guys think?
 

It would always be nicer to have higher ranked players but at this point in the Fleck era, I'm a lot more interested in FIT than I am about star rankings.

This isn't Fleck's first go-around. I'm guessing he has a decent idea what kind of player they are looking for by now.

If he racks up a couple of consecutive 5-7 or 4-8 seasons, I'll start to get worried.
 


60's Guy said:
Signings are pretty much over. 247 has compiled overall team rankings with freshmen and transfers combined.
Some teams hired new coaches who had very little time to recruit their classes....yet many of them are well above us.
Iowa is a spot behind us. Illinois right behind them. All teams on the list pretty much added 27 to 33 guys with two higher exceptions noted.
Seems to me PJ would have us higher than we are?
Notables:
#21 Colorado 43 guys
#22 TCU
#23 Mich St
#29 Nebraska 40 guys
#31 Louisville
#37 Wisconsin
#40 Indiana
#46 Minnesota
#47 Iowa
#48 Illinois
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
One way to help evaluate the rankings is the average rating for each team. For instance Nebraska needed 40 recruits to be 29th, while TCU needed only 24 commits to be seven spots ahead of the Huskers.

Here are are the teams you chose with the number of recruits and the average player ranking:

#21 Colorado 43, 87.96
#22 TCU 33, 88.91
#23 Mich St 28, 87.89
#29 Nebraska 40, 87.47
#31 Louisville 27, 88.60
#37 Wisconsin 28, 87.35
#40 Indiana 31, 86.91
#46 Minnesota 27, 87.07
#47 Iowa 28, 86.97
#48 Illinois 28, 86.47

Same group in order of average player ranking:
TCU 33, 88.91
Louisville 27, 88.60
Colorado 43, 87.96
Mich St 28, 87.89
Nebraska 40, 87.47
Wisconsin 28, 87.35
Minnesota 27, 87.07
Iowa 28, 86.97
Indiana 31, 86.91
Illinois 28, 86.47

Of course I’d like Fleck to recruit a little better, and I think that’s a general feeling towards almost any team. This year we only have 3 4-star players coming in (2 high schoolers and 1 transfer). I think we had 4 last year. However as another poster mentioned, fit is very important, and I would add that coaches evaluations are more important than the ranking websites. What they do provide is a general idea of how we compare to other teams.
 

WAGopher said:
One way to help evaluate the rankings is the average rating for each team. For instance Nebraska needed 40 recruits to be 29th, while TCU needed only 24 commits to be seven spots ahead of the Huskers.

Here are are the teams you chose with the number of recruits and the average player ranking:

#21 Colorado 43, 87.96
#22 TCU 33, 88.91
#23 Mich St 28, 87.89
#29 Nebraska 40, 87.47
#31 Louisville 27, 88.60
#37 Wisconsin 28, 87.35
#40 Indiana 31, 86.91
#46 Minnesota 27, 87.07
#47 Iowa 28, 86.97
#48 Illinois 28, 86.47

Same group in order of average player ranking:
TCU 33, 88.91
Louisville 27, 88.60
Colorado 43, 87.96
Mich St 28, 87.89
Nebraska 40, 87.47
Wisconsin 28, 87.35
Minnesota 27, 87.07
Iowa 28, 86.97
Indiana 31, 86.91
Illinois 28, 86.47

Of course I’d like Fleck to recruit a little better, and I think that’s a general feeling towards almost any team. This year we only have 3 4-star players coming in (2 high schoolers and 1 transfer). I think we had 4 last year. However as another poster mentioned, fit is very important, and I would add that coaches evaluations are more important than the ranking websites. What they do provide is a general idea of how we compare to other teams.
Click to expand...
Also, trying to differentiate to two places beyond the decimal point is insane. All of those are virtually identical.

Yes, teams like OSU and PSU with 92/93 classes are easier to tell the difference but not so much with the above group.

At this point, PJ is on par with his peers from a ranking/talent perspective. Now it's about fit, development, retention (to an extent in NIL era), filling gaps (big in NIL era), and coaching/preparation.
 


At this point in the Fleck era we are a top #45 recruiting team and a top #30 on the field program. I will take that over being at top #60 recruiting program with a top #50 football team. With Fleck constantly producing NFL level talent we will continue to recruit good, but not great. We will either need a differentiator (a playoff bound team or a great NIL partner) to take the next step in being a top #25 recruiting team/#20 team.
 

60's Guy said:
Signings are pretty much over. 247 has compiled overall team rankings with freshmen and transfers combined.
Some teams hired new coaches who had very little time to recruit their classes....yet many of them are well above us.
Iowa is a spot behind us. Illinois right behind them. All teams on the list pretty much added 27 to 33 guys with two higher exceptions noted.
Seems to me PJ would have us higher than we are?
Notables:
#21 Colorado 43 guys
#22 TCU
#23 Mich St
#29 Nebraska 40 guys
#31 Louisville
#37 Wisconsin
#40 Indiana
#46 Minnesota
#47 Iowa
#48 Illinois
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
Team recruiting rankings are a horrible metric to use when evaluating the quality of a recruiting class.

But I know some in here choose to live and die by what the recruiting sites say because how could they possibly be wrong when evaluating thousands of players who will never be on a field together based on highlight videos and some game film....

In the current era of player movement, evaluating recruiting classes has even less value because there is a good chance many of the players are going to leave.

My opinion on Fleck's recruiting is that he is bringing in guys with legit power 5 interest for the most part and the team is competing well on the field so he must be doing something right. Could care less where the class ranks in the on paper recruiting wars.

In terms of the high school players in our recent classes:
2017 - All things considered this was a strong class with some key contributors.
2018 - Strong class with some really good top end players and solid depth
2019 - Pretty disappointing class as it worked out. Nubin, Carter and a few others but lots of attrition in this group.
2020 - Still a little early to evaluate full group but some nice players in this group, also a fair amount of attrition which is the norm anymore.
2021 - Lost some of the top rated guys unfortunately, still too early to say on a lot of the guys that are still here. Some definite potential though to be a strong group.
2022 - Too early to know. Bixby (retiring?) is unfortunate
2023 - Way too early to know
 

Who cares about stars at Minnesota, its about developing 3 star prospects which we have done. The high ranked recruits will usually go to blue blood programs it is what it is.
 




I have no issues with getting one or 2 4* signers a year ... Where I want to see the improvement is on the backend.. our lowest rated recruits... I'd rather see the .86 be the lower end . And not .83/.84

I know it's a .2 difference.. but in today's college game let those major developmental guys go prove themselves at a lower level and move up...
Just my opinion
 


As has been noted above, ranking players to four significant figures is math malpractice.
247 does it to add a patina of science to what is a very unscientific venture.
But it does give the poor souls who live and die with the rankings some certainty, even if it is false certainty.
PJ should be judged by his conference record to date and secondarly by his record over rivals.
I would give him a C+.
Next year will be more difficult and after that no more West and USC and UCLA are in the mix.
 

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
Is there really that much of a difference between #30 and #50?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

What really needs to improve is the reliability of the rankings. Every year, they should do an analysis of how their own rankings compare to actual results on the field, and then publish those.

Somehow, that seems unlikely to happen.
 




Plato said:
As has been noted above, ranking players to four significant figures is math malpractice.
247 does it to add a patina of science to what is a very unscientific venture.
But it does give the poor souls who live and die with the rankings some certainty, even if it is false certainty.
PJ should be judged by his conference record to date and secondarly by his record over rivals.
I would give him a C+.
Next year will be more difficult and after that no more West and USC and UCLA are in the mix.
Click to expand...

Yes. Same for Luke Fickell and Kirk Ferentz.
 

pharmacygopher said:
Also, trying to differentiate to two places beyond the decimal point is insane. All of those are virtually identical.

Yes, teams like OSU and PSU with 92/93 classes are easier to tell the difference but not so much with the above group.

At this point, PJ is on par with his peers from a ranking/talent perspective. Now it's about fit, development, retention (to an extent in NIL era), filling gaps (big in NIL era), and coaching/preparation.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you, and thank you for pointing out how close these teams are.

It only takes about 5 new difference makers each year to field a very good team. Do that and the wins will continue.
 



They can sign an entire class of two stars and be #100 for all I care as long as we keep plugging away 8+ wins. Get us guys that want to be here and fit what we need, it's pretty clear the coaches know how to ID talent and develop it where prognosticators do not.
 

WAGopher said:
One way to help evaluate the rankings is the average rating for each team. For instance Nebraska needed 40 recruits to be 29th, while TCU needed only 24 commits to be seven spots ahead of the Huskers.

Here are are the teams you chose with the number of recruits and the average player ranking:

#21 Colorado 43, 87.96
#22 TCU 33, 88.91
#23 Mich St 28, 87.89
#29 Nebraska 40, 87.47
#31 Louisville 27, 88.60
#37 Wisconsin 28, 87.35
#40 Indiana 31, 86.91
#46 Minnesota 27, 87.07
#47 Iowa 28, 86.97
#48 Illinois 28, 86.47

Same group in order of average player ranking:
TCU 33, 88.91
Louisville 27, 88.60
Colorado 43, 87.96
Mich St 28, 87.89
Nebraska 40, 87.47
Wisconsin 28, 87.35
Minnesota 27, 87.07
Iowa 28, 86.97
Indiana 31, 86.91
Illinois 28, 86.47

Of course I’d like Fleck to recruit a little better, and I think that’s a general feeling towards almost any team. This year we only have 3 4-star players coming in (2 high schoolers and 1 transfer). I think we had 4 last year. However as another poster mentioned, fit is very important, and I would add that coaches evaluations are more important than the ranking websites. What they do provide is a general idea of how we compare to other teams.
Click to expand...
One thing that I’ll note is that, many of the kids Fleck signs early, which means they don’t get as many offers, which means they might not get the bump associated with a Michigan offer, etc. that others get. I tend to think on average our class would increase about a point if they waited longer to commit.
 

WAGopher said:
One way to help evaluate the rankings is the average rating for each team. For instance Nebraska needed 40 recruits to be 29th, while TCU needed only 24 commits to be seven spots ahead of the Huskers.

Here are are the teams you chose with the number of recruits and the average player ranking:

#21 Colorado 43, 87.96
#22 TCU 33, 88.91
#23 Mich St 28, 87.89
#29 Nebraska 40, 87.47
#31 Louisville 27, 88.60
#37 Wisconsin 28, 87.35
#40 Indiana 31, 86.91
#46 Minnesota 27, 87.07
#47 Iowa 28, 86.97
#48 Illinois 28, 86.47

Same group in order of average player ranking:
TCU 33, 88.91
Louisville 27, 88.60
Colorado 43, 87.96
Mich St 28, 87.89
Nebraska 40, 87.47
Wisconsin 28, 87.35
Minnesota 27, 87.07
Iowa 28, 86.97
Indiana 31, 86.91
Illinois 28, 86.47

Of course I’d like Fleck to recruit a little better, and I think that’s a general feeling towards almost any team. This year we only have 3 4-star players coming in (2 high schoolers and 1 transfer). I think we had 4 last year. However as another poster mentioned, fit is very important, and I would add that coaches evaluations are more important than the ranking websites. What they do provide is a general idea of how we compare to other teams.
Click to expand...

I would have been OK with 0.15 difference in points, but 0.28 has me wondering if we should be looking to fire the coach and get somebody in here that knows what they are doing.

I wish 247 would calculate out to 4 decimal points. I want even more precision on speculative assessments masquerading as direct measurements. :)
 

on the one hand, recruiting could always be better -unless you're an Alabama or Ohio State.

This is not a simple question. It revolves around a lot of subjective judgements and requires a lot of nuance. Which means that it doesn't fit into a simple Yes/No type of answer.

my stab at it: under Fleck, recruiting has improved. The Question is whether it has improved enough to help the Gophers move to a higher level of competition. But that again depends on how you define "higher level."

If by higher level you are talking about playing in a conference championship game, winning a conference championship, or playing in the Rose Bowl - then No, the Gophers have not reached that level. Yet.

Now, is that level even possible or achievable for the Gopher program? that is a far different question.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Team recruiting rankings are a horrible metric to use when evaluating the quality of a recruiting class.

But I know some in here choose to live and die by what the recruiting sites say because how could they possibly be wrong when evaluating thousands of players who will never be on a field together based on highlight videos and some game film....

In the current era of player movement, evaluating recruiting classes has even less value because there is a good chance many of the players are going to leave.

My opinion on Fleck's recruiting is that he is bringing in guys with legit power 5 interest for the most part and the team is competing well on the field so he must be doing something right. Could care less where the class ranks in the on paper recruiting wars.

In terms of the high school players in our recent classes:
2017 - All things considered this was a strong class with some key contributors.
2018 - Strong class with some really good top end players and solid depth
2019 - Pretty disappointing class as it worked out. Nubin, Carter and a few others but lots of attrition in this group.
2020 - Still a little early to evaluate full group but some nice players in this group, also a fair amount of attrition which is the norm anymore.
2021 - Lost some of the top rated guys unfortunately, still too early to say on a lot of the guys that are still here. Some definite potential though to be a strong group.
2022 - Too early to know. Bixby (retiring?) is unfortunate
2023 - Way too early to know
Click to expand...

They (mostly) don't evaluate film. The stars are dependent on the number of offers received. One D1 offer automatically earns a 2 star. Then some number beyond that is a 3 and so forth and so on. The "game" is to get lots of offers, which increases your stars, which increases your offers (kind of neat!). There are now "services" parents and others can hire to secure "offers" for their kid to increase their star stock, whether or not they would even consider going to that school.

Broadly speaking, a 5 star is probably better prepared to make the jump to college ball than a 3 star, but that is more a function of the level of competition they played and where they played it. Exposure is part of the equation in addition to raw athletic ability.
 

PoockItInfor6 said:
One thing that I’ll note is that, many of the kids Fleck signs early, which means they don’t get as many offers, which means they might not get the bump associated with a Michigan offer, etc. that others get. I tend to think on average our class would increase about a point if they waited longer to commit.
Click to expand...
Correct. The more offers, the higher the star. If they sign somehwere and the suitors drop off, no more offers means no increase in stars.
 

Nobody is allowed to get better <insert arbitrary measurement> except us!!!!

/s
 

short ornery norwegian said:
on the one hand, recruiting could always be better -unless you're an Alabama or Ohio State.

This is not a simple question. It revolves around a lot of subjective judgements and requires a lot of nuance. Which means that it doesn't fit into a simple Yes/No type of answer.

my stab at it: under Fleck, recruiting has improved. The Question is whether it has improved enough to help the Gophers move to a higher level of competition. But that again depends on how you define "higher level."

If by higher level you are talking about playing in a conference championship game, winning a conference championship, or playing in the Rose Bowl - then No, the Gophers have not reached that level. Yet.

Now, is that level even possible or achievable for the Gopher program? that is a far different question.
Click to expand...
I tend to think that recruiting rankings are similar to those rankings of universities that come out. The top 15 are incredible institutions of higher learning, the top 50 are damn good. Is the university that is ranked #1 better than the one ranked #50? Probably. Is the one ranked #8 better than the one ranked #24? Maybe. Law schools, I believe, are ranked in tiers, which might be a better system. If college football recruiting were ranked in tiers, I would probably put us in tier 2, a big group that is behind the blue bloods.
 

On some of these teams half the kids will be in the portal in 2 years.
 

DarthGopher said:
They (mostly) don't evaluate film. The stars are dependent on the number of offers received. One D1 offer automatically earns a 2 star. Then some number beyond that is a 3 and so forth and so on. The "game" is to get lots of offers, which increases your stars, which increases your offers (kind of neat!). There are now "services" parents and others can hire to secure "offers" for their kid to increase their star stock, whether or not they would even consider going to that school.
Click to expand...
This has been discussed to death over the years here, but this isn't what happens, FYI.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom