Big Picture Recruiting Stats & Thoughts

HeretoBeatmyChest

HeretoBeatmyChest

New Fish
The graph below shows our average star per recruit as well as our ranking based on average star. We also plot a 4-year average for both data series.

Here are some insights. It wasn't until 2010 when talent started to improve. Until 2011 our talent was stuck around 35. In 2013 we finally had an average above 3 and average ranking of 23. That does not mean 23rd best but it means its equivalent to being ranked 23, 4 years in a row. Not a surprise the 2013 team was #13 in SRS in #18 in ESPN's metric. It was clearly the most talented team we had in a while. (Average star of 3.14).

Coaching transitions hurt us in 2005 and 2009 obviously. In 2013 we were four classes removed from the 2009 "free pub" disaster. Note the difference between Pete's first class and Ty/Sark. Those twats were 2.58, 2.62 and 51,55 while Pete finished his class at 3.0 and with a ranking of 36. Huge difference.

The one issue, as we look to the 2015 season is you still have two weak classes (in the 4 years) in 2012 and 2014 which was a transition class. The 2012 class will lose Shaq so it will be even worse. Had Sark not completely whiffed in-state that year then it wouldn't be a rebuilding year.

Right now we are at a 3.19 average which would be tied for the 2nd best class in the last 14 years. We should note that Scout has inflated its grades since 2004. In 2003-2004 we had below 3* average but still had top 25 classes. Anyway it appears that 4* recruits Hawkins, Joyner, Potoae, Warren and Fotu are in play. We have 16 commits and could take 10 more. If we get 4 of those 5 and of the last 6 add 1 2* guy then we are looking at 3.23 (average star) for this class. A 3.2 this year and 3.1 next year would, heading into the 2016 season give us an average star better than in 2013.

2016-2017 is when Pete's team will start to take shape. Thats his 3rd and 4th year and 2018 you no longer have the slight negative effect of the small 2014 class. The most pressing issues in 2015 for the long-term will be QB and OL. The DL will be fine after next year.

If we can recruit at a 3.1 average consistently, then we'll be bringing in top 25 talent every year. If Pete is at 3.2 consistently then that is top 20 type talent.

cc5e8298cc42e6eb5b1cc5dd041a46.png
 
Last edited:
One minor suggestion ...

On your left-handed axis, I would invert your numbers such that it shows off that the '05 and '09 classes are drops instead of growth periods
 
This just reminded me that fucking Tyrone's pathetic '05 class is actually better on paper than Dude Brah's '09 class where he was building up FREE PUB! That's not even to mention that Sark obviously did zero homework (surprise) and it seems like have the class never even stepped foot on campus.
 
Last edited:
The graph below shows our average star per recruit as well as our ranking based on average star. We also plot a 4-year average for both data series.

Here are some insights. It wasn't until 2010 when talent started to improve. Until 2011 our talent was stuck around 35. In 2013 we finally had an average above 3 and average ranking of 23. That does not mean 23rd best but it means its equivalent to being ranked 23, 4 years in a row. Not a surprise the 2013 team was #13 in SRS in #18 in ESPN's metric. It was clearly the most talented team we had in a while. (Average star of 3.14).

Coaching transitions hurt us in 2005 and 2009 obviously. In 2013 we were four classes removed from the 2009 "free pub" disaster. Note the difference between Pete's first class and Ty/Sark. Those twats were 2.58, 2.62 and 51,55 while Pete finished his class at 3.0 and with a ranking of 36. Huge difference.

The one issue, as we look to the 2015 season is you still have two weak classes (in the 4 years) in 2012 and 2014 which was a transition class. The 2012 class will lose Shaq so it will be even worse. Had Sark not completely whiffed in-state that year then it wouldn't be a rebuilding year.

Right now we are at a 3.19 average which would be tied for the 2nd best class in the last 14 years. We should note that Scout has inflated its grades since 2004. In 2003-2004 we had below 3* average but still had top 25 classes. Anyway it appears that 4* recruits Hawkins, Joyner, Potoae, Warren and Fotu are in play. We have 16 commits and could take 10 more. If we get 4 of those 5 and of the last 6 add 1 2* guy then we are looking at 3.23 (average star) for this class. A 3.2 this year and 3.1 next year would, heading into the 2016 season give us an average star better than in 2013.

2016-2017 is when Pete's team will start to take shape. Thats his 3rd and 4th year and 2018 you no longer have the slight negative effect of the small 2014 class. The most pressing issues in 2015 for the long-term will be QB and OL. The DL will be fine after next year.

If we can recruit at a 3.1 average consistently, then we'll be bringing in top 25 talent every year. If Pete is at 3.2 consistently then that is top 20 type talent.

View attachment 79
Click to expand...

All i see are tits.
 
This just reminded me that fucking Tyrone's pathetic '05 class is actually better on paper than Dude Brah's '09 class where he was building up FREE PUB! That's not even to mention that Sark obviously did zero homework (surprise) and it seems like have the class never even stepped foot on campus.
Click to expand...

Willingham's '05 class is legendary.

Daniel Te'o-Nesheim

JR Hasty

EJ Savannah

Johnny Durocher

Morgan Rosborough

and Ben Ossai

Sark's 09 class had Price, Trufant, James Johnson, Andru Pulu, and Talia Critchon.

Night and day here, folks.
 
So first off, @HeretoBeatmyChest‌, thanks for this. It's really fun and the reason I pay my $10.94 or whatever it is.

Second, I think what's even more interesting is that—and people said this with Sark, and they were kind of right—the quality of your 3-star kids really determines a lot about how good your class actually is.

To wit, under Sark, the 3-star kids usually had other Pac-12 offers and under Ty they didn't. I hate Dude Brah as much as anyone (maybe more), but he was obviously better than Ty, so no point in not giving him the faint praise of saying he was better at recruiting than Ty*.

The thing with Pete is that the quality of his 3-star kids are along different lines. Normally I'm a 'stars matter' kind of guy, but Pete is a really interesting coach in that he offers guys like Pettis—who no other Pac-12 team wanted—and they turn out to be fucking good (or they have so far). If Pettis had offers from Oregon and UCLA and were a 4-star kid, his year would still be a pleasant surprise. Same with Sidney Jones MMXIV and Will "Grizzly Adams/Stan Empterman" Dissly.

I'm not sure whether to splooge all over my sweatpants that Pete is now seemingly cleaning up with 4-star kids or what, but what I do know is that the quality of our mid-tier players seem to be very good.

I like the 1-5 star rating system, but Scout is stupid for a few parts of it.

a. They should have a consistent number of 5-stars every year and that should be based on data not speculation by their 'scouts'.
b. They really only use 4 of the ratings and 2-stars are barely even rated, which makes the variance massively restricted and less predictive than it should be.
c. They eval the players themselves and don't just have an algorithm (which would be easy to generate) based on offers (which would be weighted differently for betting scouting staffs and higher prestige offers).

I'm not sure how optimistic to be about this year's class, but chit could be getting pretty fucking good.

*Ty probably gets a worse rap than he should because as I've always said, Gilby ran the ship into the iceberg, Ty basically just failed to get it going again. Ty inherited a 1-11 team and if he were fired at the right time he would've left it 4-9. Gilby inherited a 7-6 and left it 1-11.
 
A few comments @Dennis_DeYoung‌…

I completely agree regarding Ty. He actually improved the program to mediocre or average. His squads in 06-07 were around 50 SRS and would have gone to bowl games if he wasn't such a shitty coach. Sark's teams from 09-12 had the exact same metrics. And if Emmert doesn't pussy out after 2007 season, odds are you still get that great 08 class and then there is no 09 disaster. But I think Petersen will do better than Mora would have done.

Anyway, the 3 star point is huge….

Ty got lots of 3* guys but they were guys with OSU/WSU offers and not guys with Cal/Stan/UCLA type offers. Also, Sark's 3*s are proving to be not good. I just looked this up. I looked for # of 3 stars, (no JCs), how many are starters, backups and how many are gone. In gone I also include the ones who will never play (very few, majority is gone).

In 2011 there were 14. So far 5 are starters, 2 backups and 7 are gone.
In 2012 there were 13. So far 3 are starters, 3 are backups and 6 are gone.

I liked the 2013 class quite a bit as a lot of the 3* guys had great offers. Four have started a game and Crane and Victor will make it 6 next season. I guess Constantine and O Brian haven't done much and maybe don't fit into plans. Who knows with Ajamu at TE. But this class ends up being better than 11-12 from a 3* standpoint.

Anyway, we would expect Pete to do better with the lower half of recruits. The thing is, if Pete can average 3.1-3.2 every year then you are essentially recruiting at a top 22 level. But if you factor in better recruiting of the lower half guys, then perhaps the classes end up being 5 spots better in overall talent. Factor in Pete's development and coaching plus strong continuity and that is how UW could become a top 10 program again.
 
Whoever says there aren't well thought out posts at HH needs to read this post and then go fuck off somewhere. I don't even understand most of this shit, but I just wanted to tell people to fuck off.
 
Basically, if you can get to that top 25 level consistently you have a chance to do major damage and make major bowl games and what not. I've seen some studies about the importance of getting to that level, it is pretty interesting.

Great chit, proving once again this is the best place to talk Husky Football.
 
I would bet you that TCU's chart would look worse ... yet the results are so much better. Why?

Oh that's right, coaching matters.

And that's the thing with Petersen, not only do you know that he's going to take a well balanced class full of players that he and his staff have put in plenty of time talking to, scouting, and understanding their fit in the program, but once on campus, the players will further develop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top