BallSacked
New Fish
Sure. As well if you had two classes with the same average, which one would you want? The 25 or 17 man one.
Both rankings are relevant.
So, is it class rank, or star average that determines how good a class is?
- Thread starter Swaye
- Start date
Both rankings are relevant.
BallSacked
New Fish
That wasn't what you were saying.
HTH.
FremontTroll
New Fish
Your 25 man class would be ranked much lower in reality.
4*= 120 base points
3*= 40 base points
Additional points are awarded based on position rankings so high 4* are worth more than low 4* etc.
HuskyHalfBrain
Active poster
Chincredible.
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
Ranking by average star is more predictive of future success.
We came in at 17th which is the highest we've been since the 2001 post Rose Bowl class. Three of Sark's last 4 classes came in at #20, #22 and #20. @bananasnblondes the 2010 class was actually #20 in terms of star average. Sark actually recruited well on paper but the classes were much worse because of poor development and huge attrition. Pete will get more out of each class and less overall attrition.
Clemson's last 4 classes were around #15-#20. Oregon under Chip was #10 to #12. Stanford had some great classes with Harbaugh and was in the top 15. Their recruiting has gotten slightly worse with Shaw but he's still outperforming the recruiting rankings. Oregon and Stanford recently have been outperforming their rankings as has Michigan St by a fucking mile. The past few years they have won conference titles with recent classes around #25. Its only the past few classes that have gotten better in better (from #20 down to #10 this year). Oregon's recruiting under Helfrich is slipping a bit each year.
Anyway the key is for Pete to put together classes like this one consistently. If we can break through on the field this season and next then maybe we can recruit at a top #15 level. Thats putting together the same class but including a Kongbo, McKinley or Eason. That shit adds up when you look at the full roster. How much better would this roster look going into this year with a single blue chip safety and single blue chip WR (recruited in the past few classes). Top 15 level and you are a legit conference title contender every year.
We came in at 17th which is the highest we've been since the 2001 post Rose Bowl class. Three of Sark's last 4 classes came in at #20, #22 and #20. @bananasnblondes the 2010 class was actually #20 in terms of star average. Sark actually recruited well on paper but the classes were much worse because of poor development and huge attrition. Pete will get more out of each class and less overall attrition.
Clemson's last 4 classes were around #15-#20. Oregon under Chip was #10 to #12. Stanford had some great classes with Harbaugh and was in the top 15. Their recruiting has gotten slightly worse with Shaw but he's still outperforming the recruiting rankings. Oregon and Stanford recently have been outperforming their rankings as has Michigan St by a fucking mile. The past few years they have won conference titles with recent classes around #25. Its only the past few classes that have gotten better in better (from #20 down to #10 this year). Oregon's recruiting under Helfrich is slipping a bit each year.
Anyway the key is for Pete to put together classes like this one consistently. If we can break through on the field this season and next then maybe we can recruit at a top #15 level. Thats putting together the same class but including a Kongbo, McKinley or Eason. That shit adds up when you look at the full roster. How much better would this roster look going into this year with a single blue chip safety and single blue chip WR (recruited in the past few classes). Top 15 level and you are a legit conference title contender every year.
devildawg
New Fish
Who the fuck cares? When pete gets 23-25 kids with a 3.5 average we can actually compete
This idea that we out recruited anybody with a 17 man class is a a joke! DBG is a 2 star,Chin is a 2 star the fat OL is a 2 star the TE from Oregon will never catch a pass.Mcgrew is a nice little recruit he's not the best tailback on the west coast...ask the all star game folks,Pleasant was a fill in that nobody else offered,Fuller is a role guy
It's a nice class for a 6-6 team that's at the bottom half of the conference...it's hardly a game changer type class
This idea that we out recruited anybody with a 17 man class is a a joke! DBG is a 2 star,Chin is a 2 star the fat OL is a 2 star the TE from Oregon will never catch a pass.Mcgrew is a nice little recruit he's not the best tailback on the west coast...ask the all star game folks,Pleasant was a fill in that nobody else offered,Fuller is a role guy
It's a nice class for a 6-6 team that's at the bottom half of the conference...it's hardly a game changer type class
NeGgaPlEaSe
New Fish
It's all fucking retarded if you can't develop the talent. If Pete is who we hope he is, 3 stars will be developed into all Pac 12 caliber starters
Last edited:
Scout had us at a 3.47 average I believe Rivals had us at 3.12...or it could be vice versa. It was pretty respectable. Florida State, Bammer, USC, Ohio State and the like were around 3.7 to 3.85 or so. I'm too lazy to look it up again.
As always, it's time to prove it on the field...even Gilby and Ty always had classes between about 10 and 40th, and it translated to poor years.
As always, it's time to prove it on the field...even Gilby and Ty always had classes between about 10 and 40th, and it translated to poor years.
NEsnake12
New Fish
Sindey Jones 1st team, Greg Gaines and Myles Gaskin honorable mention if we're just looking at the 3* guys Pete recruited. Which is pretty fucking impressive given that they're Fr/So. If we want to attribute more development to Pete than Sark, then we can also throw in Azeem Victor and Kevin King as honorable mention 3* guys.
Plus literally every stud he churned out of Boise. Guys like Ryan Clady, Doug Martin, Kellen Moore, Orlando Scandrick, DeMarcus Lawrence... etc.
He's proven he can do it, just has to prove to us that it translates to wins.