recent recruiting rankings...

[Bleadgandb3334]

All BS with this recruiting ranking crap for overall rankings compared to everyone. It’s all relative. For example: Team A, #21 overall and second best in conference, with #1 in conference being #19. Not a big difference in conference. Team B, #20, 10th in conference. So, team A doesn’t play anyone even close to NFL future players and talent on a consistent basis. Team B, one spot better, gets there brains beat in every week in conference. Why would recruits continue to choose team B over A? At least that’s what Clemsux has been telling them since 2009.

 

[king ward]

I get the OP's point. They aren't recruiting on level with Alabama or even Georgia.

My thesis has always been there's a minimum level of talent that allows you to compete at that level. You need to be in that Top 10 range to even have a shot- Clemson has done that. They have also been above elite (best in class) at key positions- QB, DL.

So Clemson is ultra talented and has enough talent to compete at highest level, but is probably still punching above their weight due to having generational talent at key positions. And.. as much as we hate to admit it, they have coached really, really well.

Good synopsis. They recruit difference--makers and school them well.

 

[Klemnop]

I’m a Clemson guy. Bored on a Sunday morning now that football is dead for a while.

I hope my post doesn’t end in a ban. I’m not here to stir up trouble.

The guy arguing that rankings matter is 100% right. That evidence is indisputable.

What is lost in the nuance of that argument is how those players that are recruited actually matriculate.

Josh Belk *inflated* Clemson’s class ranking for 2018. When you look back +3 years from now Clemson’s “true” ranking won’t match the final 2018 ranking because a War Daddy never actually contributed. Likewise Carolina’s 2018 ranking doesn’t properly reflect Belk’s inclusion as a “true” member of the class.

The point was made earlier in this thread that OU’s ranking doesn’t include anywhere Kyler Murray- the Heisman winner. So ranking alone, as a point in time exercise, is flawed.

An obvious huge contributor to Monday’s result was the # of highly-recruited players from the ‘14 and ‘15 classes that stayed on campus for another year that they didn’t have to. Wilkins, Ferrell and Bryant - obviously. But Mitch Hyatt too. And others. Alabama didn’t have their ‘14 and ‘15 4* and 5* players hang around. That makes a HUGE difference. (And Christian Miller not playing likewise was a huge advantage for Clemson, similar to Mac Alexander not playing in 2015 really hurting Clemson.)

So, you’ve got to recruit in the Top 10 but you’ve also got to get those guys to materialize as players you expected them to be on the roster 3 - 4 years later.

You’d be better off to set your expectations by re-evaluating what your “true” recruiting ranking for a given year would have been considering player attrition.

 

[LazyIslander]

I’m a Clemson guy. Bored on a Sunday morning now that football is dead for a while.

I hope my post doesn’t end in a ban. I’m not here to stir up trouble.

The guy arguing that rankings matter is 100% right. That evidence is indisputable.

What is lost in the nuance of that argument is how those players that are recruited actually matriculate.

Josh Belk *inflated* Clemson’s class ranking for 2018. When you look back +3 years from now Clemson’s “true” ranking won’t match the final 2018 ranking because a War Daddy never actually contributed. Likewise Carolina’s 2018 ranking doesn’t properly reflect Belk’s inclusion as a “true” member of the class.

The point was made earlier in this thread that OU’s ranking doesn’t include anywhere Kyler Murray- the Heisman winner. So ranking alone, as a point in time exercise, is flawed.

An obvious huge contributor to Monday’s result was the # of highly-recruited players from the ‘14 and ‘15 classes that stayed on campus for another year that they didn’t have to. Wilkins, Ferrell and Bryant - obviously. But Mitch Hyatt too. And others. Alabama didn’t have their ‘14 and ‘15 4* and 5* players hang around. That makes a HUGE difference. (And Christian Miller not playing likewise was a huge advantage for Clemson, similar to Mac Alexander not playing in 2015 really hurting Clemson.)

So, you’ve got to recruit in the Top 10 but you’ve also got to get those guys to materialize as players you expected them to be on the roster 3 - 4 years later.

You’d be better off to set your expectations by re-evaluating what your “true” recruiting ranking for a given year would have been considering player attrition.

...with that said, Clemson also lost a 5* QB and two 4* QBs to transfer when their QB showed up. How much did those three contribute to their overall rankings?

 

[Klemnop]

...with that said, Clemson also lost a 5* QB and two 4* QBs to transfer when their QB showed up. How much did those three contribute to their overall rankings?

A lot. Which is why the argument has to be considered more carefully.

Losing three QBs (when you’ve got a 4th 5* in your back pocket) changes the dynamic. But was more than offset by four 4*/5* D-line/O-line coming back for one more year.

I’m just saying that only looking at the point-in-time recruiting ranking is not sophisticated enough. You’ve got to find a way to evaluate how that talent was maintained through to the actual roster composition +3 and +4 years later.

The #1 factor in Clemson’s success in 2018 was getting guaranteed first round talent to come back for one more year.