Recruiting ranking

[tuckerrivals]

In today's GC email, Chris Clark had a breakdown on our recruiting ranking this year, currently at 14 on Rivals, but he pointed out how total # of commitments influences that ranking, so ranking doesn't necessarily mean much at this point. He used BC as an example, being ranked 8th currently but with 21 commits and a lower star average than us with 14 commits. Ranked by star average, we're currently #33. Chris listed our previous 5 years rankings:

2021: 79th
2020: 18th
2019: 19th
2018: 18th
2017: 16th

I'm curious how our average star rankings ranked during those years, and during the full tenure of Coach Spurrier. Does anyone have or want to look that up?

 

[tuckerrivals]

Answering my own question here (I didn't realize how easy it would be to find). Our average star ranking for those years was (listed after actual rank):

2021: 79th - 36
2020: 18th - 25
2019: 19th - 20
2018: 18th - 18
2017: 16th - 23

When I have a little time, I'll go back further into the Spurrier years, unless someone else wants to do it.

 

[tuckerrivals]

2016: 26th - 33
2015: 19th - 17
2014: 16th - 13
2013: 16th - 15
2012: 19th - 21
2011: 18th - 19
2010: 24th - 40
2009: 12th - 16
2008: 22th - 25
2007: 6th - 9
2006: 24th - 23
2005: 23th - 27
2004: 35th - 34

 

[LazyIslander]

The rankings are based on an equation, which necessarily has lots of built in subjectivity. What is missing are categories like "area of need" and "player fit within a program". These are based on the college the player chooses, and can't be measured before that choice is made. You almost have to average entire classes over a period of time to really come up with meaningful team comparisons.... or just look at the results on the field.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

What is totally missing from these rankings today that has a much bigger impact now though is the transfers! If you land half transfers and half HS kids, you wind up with a crap recruiting ranking even though you mave gotten more immediate help players than some of the highest ranked recruiting classes.

 

[JGH 35]

Based on all of this - if accurate - we should have been in the top 25 every year, but sadly, we are not even close. So much for the bogus recruiting rankings.

 

[Legendary Cock]

Based on all of this - if accurate - we should have been in the top 25 every year, but sadly, we are not even close. So much for the bogus recruiting rankings.

Under Spurrier, we almost always were -- if not higher. That's why recruiting by itself is only half the battle. Coaching matters.

 

[JGH 35]

Under Spurrier, we almost always were -- if not higher. That's why recruiting by itself is only half the battle. Coaching matters.

That's a simpleton answer commonly used on this message board by people who hate Muschamp and think he was the worst coach who ever lived and that these recruiting services are infallible geniuses who can't be wrong in their rankings. It's truly an amazing viewpoint. Not one person on this forum knows anyone at these recruiting sites who has ever done anything. While not successful here Muschamp did not get to be a defensive coordinator at a major SEC school and at Texas by being a terrible coach. His staff had also had success at previous positions at other schools.
You can have the best coaching in the world, but if you don't have the best players you aren't going to win. Our biggest problem here has been lack of talent that was over-rated by these recruiting sites. One only has to look at last year's performances to tell that. We supposedly had great recruits on the Dline, but they continually got physically whipped up front by most SEC Olines. Those Olines did it mostly in one-on-one blocking too as we had no one who needed to be double teamed. No amount of coaching can fix a 280 lb DT from getting whipped by an athletic 320 lb Olineman. Its a matter of talent.

 

[WingchunCock]

That's a simpleton answer commonly used on this message board by people who hate Muschamp and think he was the worst coach who ever lived and that these recruiting services are infallible geniuses who can't be wrong in their rankings. It's truly an amazing viewpoint. Not one person on this forum knows anyone at these recruiting sites who has ever done anything. While not successful here Muschamp did not get to be a defensive coordinator at a major SEC school and at Texas by being a terrible coach. His staff had also had success at previous positions at other schools.
You can have the best coaching in the world, but if you don't have the best players you aren't going to win. Our biggest problem here has been lack of talent that was over-rated by these recruiting sites. One only has to look at last year's performances to tell that. We supposedly had great recruits on the Dline, but they continually got physically whipped up front by most SEC Olines. Those Olines did it mostly in one-on-one blocking too as we had no one who needed to be double teamed. No amount of coaching can fix a 280 lb DT from getting whipped by an athletic 320 lb Olineman. Its a matter of talent.

Very true. It did seem however under Muschamp our strength and conditioning was subpar.

 

[Conway Gamecock]

At this stage of the recruiting cycle, you'll see more of the lower-rated prospects committing in order to ensure they get spots on a program roster they are highly interested in.

You see more of what's left at the end to be the more highly valued and sought after 4* and 5* elite talent waiting to commit in order to make big news splashes: used to be they'd wait to make the big NSD announcement, but these days they will do it at those All-American exhibition games, or during the early signing period. And then there are those who just struggle to make a final decision, and wait until the final weeks to decide.

And there's also the scenarios of prospects wanting to go to certain programs, but are told to wait and see if those programs get someone higher rated than them into their spots, or are told by the recruiter that they'll be accepted if someone else doesn't pan out.

So later in the process, you'll see major impacts to the rankings when those higher-rated prospects start to sort themselves out, and add themselves to classes....

 

[Conway Gamecock]

2016: 26th - 33
2015: 19th - 17
2014: 16th - 13
2013: 16th - 15
2012: 19th - 21
2011: 18th - 19
2010: 24th - 40
2009: 12th - 16
2008: 22th - 25
2007: 6th - 9
2006: 24th - 23
2005: 23th - 27
2004: 35th - 34

I always viewed the Average Star Rating to hold more value than straight class rankings. Some classes in the past were allowed to have as many as 30+ commits, while others were closer to 20 than 30. Plus the average top-to-bottom rating strength of a class - if they are to be believed at all - makes the more relevant impact to the talent depth of the team, than where they rank against other programs' classes....

 

[Legendary Cock]

That's a simpleton answer commonly used on this message board by people who hate Muschamp and think he was the worst coach who ever lived and that these recruiting services are infallible geniuses who can't be wrong in their rankings. It's truly an amazing viewpoint. Not one person on this forum knows anyone at these recruiting sites who has ever done anything. While not successful here Muschamp did not get to be a defensive coordinator at a major SEC school and at Texas by being a terrible coach. His staff had also had success at previous positions at other schools.
You can have the best coaching in the world, but if you don't have the best players you aren't going to win. Our biggest problem here has been lack of talent that was over-rated by these recruiting sites. One only has to look at last year's performances to tell that. We supposedly had great recruits on the Dline, but they continually got physically whipped up front by most SEC Olines. Those Olines did it mostly in one-on-one blocking too as we had no one who needed to be double teamed. No amount of coaching can fix a 280 lb DT from getting whipped by an athletic 320 lb Olineman. Its a matter of talent.

Ok genius. Then why is it Spurrier and Muschamp had pretty much equally ranked classes, yet only one of them could win? Spurrier didn't exactly start out with a loaded cupboard, yet managed to beat Florida for the first time since the Great Depression and UT in Knoxville for the first time ever. Muschamp won games against only three ranked teams his entire tenure here. And let's not get started on bad he was at Florida WITH a loaded roster.

We actually agree that individual star rankings aren't always the end-all be-all. But there have been multiple studies that show that almost every team that has won the national championship in the last decade or so have ALL recruited consistently in the top 10 in overall rankings.

 

[gamecock stock]

Beamer is doing a good job in recruiting. If he can "coach", we will have struck both gold and oil. The outcome of his bowl game against Cincinnati in the Military Bowl, when he was the Interim Head Coach on the sideline, gives me hope. Frank had throat surgery and so was confined to the press box in that game. Virginia Tech was the underdog going into that game. They rolled over Cincinnati and Shane was showered with gatorade on the sideline by the players after the win. I know it means little. After all, BMAC won a bowl game for Georgia as Interim Head Coach and, we know how he did as OC here. But, I take encouragement wherever I can find it.

 

[gamecock stock]

Ok genius. Then why is it Spurrier and Muschamp had pretty much equally ranked classes, yet only one of them could win? Spurrier didn't exactly start out with a loaded cupboard, yet managed to beat Florida for the first time since the Great Depression and UT in Knoxville for the first time ever. Muschamp won games against only three ranked teams his entire tenure here. And let's not get started on bad he was at Florida WITH a loaded roster.

We actually agree that individual star rankings aren't always the end-all be-all. But there have been multiple studies that show that almost every team that has won the national championship in the last decade or so have ALL recruited consistently in the top 10 in overall rankings.

Need to be good at both recruiting and coaching, to get the job done. Coaching is more important in football than in basketball. One superstar can carry a basketball team. In football, you better have the coaching chops, due to the number of positions and players you are dealing with.

 

[lowcountry_cock13]

Need to be good at both recruiting and coaching, to get the job done. Coaching is more important in football than in basketball. One superstar can carry a basketball team. In football, you better have the coaching chops, due to the number of positions and players you are dealing with.

Cam Newton says one superstar can carry a football team.

 

[GMCCK97nHTWN]

That's a simpleton answer commonly used on this message board by people who hate Muschamp and think he was the worst coach who ever lived and that these recruiting services are infallible geniuses who can't be wrong in their rankings. It's truly an amazing viewpoint. Not one person on this forum knows anyone at these recruiting sites who has ever done anything. While not successful here Muschamp did not get to be a defensive coordinator at a major SEC school and at Texas by being a terrible coach. His staff had also had success at previous positions at other schools.
You can have the best coaching in the world, but if you don't have the best players you aren't going to win. Our biggest problem here has been lack of talent that was over-rated by these recruiting sites. One only has to look at last year's performances to tell that. We supposedly had great recruits on the Dline, but they continually got physically whipped up front by most SEC Olines. Those Olines did it mostly in one-on-one blocking too as we had no one who needed to be double teamed. No amount of coaching can fix a 280 lb DT from getting whipped by an athletic 320 lb Olineman. Its a matter of talent.

Talk about simple bleating

Da F?

LOL.

No wonder you’re amazed. Child-like bewilderment.

 

[JGH 35]

Talk about simple bleating

Da F?

LOL.

No wonder you’re amazed. Child-like bewilderment.

No, just at stupidity.

 

[JGH 35]

Ok genius. Then why is it Spurrier and Muschamp had pretty much equally ranked classes, yet only one of them could win? Spurrier didn't exactly start out with a loaded cupboard, yet managed to beat Florida for the first time since the Great Depression and UT in Knoxville for the first time ever. Muschamp won games against only three ranked teams his entire tenure here. And let's not get started on bad he was at Florida WITH a loaded roster.

We actually agree that individual star rankings aren't always the end-all be-all. But there have been multiple studies that show that almost every team that has won the national championship in the last decade or so have ALL recruited consistently in the top 10 in overall rankings.

Spurrier had much better talent. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Muschamp never had a Lattimore, Gilmore, Jeffery, Garcia, Clowney, Ingram, etc, etc, etc.,

 

[Legendary Cock]

Need to be good at both recruiting and coaching, to get the job done. Coaching is more important in football than in basketball. One superstar can carry a basketball team. In football, you better have the coaching chops, due to the number of positions and players you are dealing with.

My point exactly.

 

[Legendary Cock]

Spurrier had much better talent. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Muschamp never had a Lattimore, Gilmore, Jeffery, Garcia, Clowney, Ingram, etc, etc, etc.,

Muschamp had a lot of 1st and 2nd round talent. He just couldn't coach them worth a lick. By the end, the better recruits probably saw that and stayed away. And who could blame them?

Spurrier recruited and actually developed talent.

 

[gamecock stock]

Muschamp had a lot of 1st and 2nd round talent. He just couldn't coach them worth a lick. By the end, the better recruits probably saw that and stayed away. And who could blame them?

Spurrier recruited and actually developed talent.

I wholeheartedly agree. Defense was supposedly his specialty. But Muschamp's defenses were atrocious in tackling. That was a sign of poor coaching, in my opinion.

 

[kidrobinski]

Ok genius. Then why is it Spurrier and Muschamp had pretty much equally ranked classes, yet only one of them could win? Spurrier didn't exactly start out with a loaded cupboard, yet managed to beat Florida for the first time since the Great Depression and UT in Knoxville for the first time ever. Muschamp won games against only three ranked teams his entire tenure here. And let's not get started on bad he was at Florida WITH a loaded roster.

We actually agree that individual star rankings aren't always the end-all be-all. But there have been multiple studies that show that almost every team that has won the national championship in the last decade or so have ALL recruited consistently in the top 10 in overall rankings.

It still amazes me that there are people who consider Steve Spurier a mere mortal like a Will Muschamp. You can’t compare Steve Spurrier to Will Muschamp nor to ANYONE not named Saban or possibly Meyer, and I have my doubts that either of them could do at South Carolina what Steve Spurrier did. No coach at South Carolina should be held to a Spurrier standard; that’s unlikely to be repeated.

 

[Legendary Cock]

It still amazes me that there are people who consider Steve Spurier a mere mortal like a Will Muschamp. You can’t compare Steve Spurrier to Will Muschamp nor to ANYONE not named Saban or possibly Meyer, and I have my doubts that either of them could do at South Carolina what Steve Spurrier did. No coach at South Carolina should be held to a Spurrier standard; that’s unlikely to be repeated.

Mostly, I agree. But the comparison was made between the two coaches and their recruiting classes vs their teams' actual performances on the field.