BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football Recruiting

Topic: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Topic: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Author

Message

Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,047

Status: Offline

Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Posted: 10/17/2014 1:13:04 PM

Some on here claim that the last two recruiting classes have been the best of the Solich era.

Others claim that during the same time period, there's been a downgrade in quality of recruiting.

Can't both be correct. Which is correct and why?

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

RE: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Posted: 10/17/2014 3:33:03 PM

Jeff McKinney wrote:

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as the Brits say. By 2017 we will know the answer. Might have some powerful hints by mid-season 2015.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Posted: 10/17/2014 6:25:01 PM

That's an interesting question, Jeff. It's hard to use recruiting ratings over time because so many recruits don't ever really get evaluated, and because of things like inflation. Another way to look at things is based on the number of other FBS offers that the recruits had (keeping in mind that each recruiting class has the most impact 4-5 years later, when they are Juniors and Seniors):

2005 (Jrs/Srs in 2008-2009) - 0.40 (25 freshmen)
2006 (Jrs/Srs in 2009-2010) - 0.93 (15)
2007 (Jrs/Srs in 2010-2011) - 0.84 (19)
2008 (Jrs/Srs in 2011-2012) - 2.00 (15)
2009 (Jrs/Srs in 2012-2013) - 1.24 (17)
2010 (Jrs/Srs in 2013-2014) - 1.08 (12)
2011 (Jrs/Srs in 2014-2015) - 2.50 (22)
2012 (Jrs/Srs in 2015-2016) - 2.71 (14)
2013 (Jrs/Srs in 2016-2017) - 2.28 (18)
2014 (Jrs/Srs in 2017-2018) - 2.28 (18)
2015 (Jrs/Srs in 2018-2019) - 3.46 (13 so far)

By this measure, the 2008 class and 2011-2015 classes were all better than the others.

Another measure would be the number of players that were playing significant roles early in their career (by their second year):
2005 - 24% 6/25 (Stuck, Morsillo, Parson, Mitchell, Hartke, J. Meyers)
2006 - 33% 5/15 (Price, McCrae, Garrett, S. Jackson, Luchsinger)
2007 - 26% 5/19 (Davidson, Brazill, Dunlop, Keller, C. Meyers)
2008 - 67% 10/15 (Carlotta, Herman, Thompson, Bussey, Moore, Payne, Lewis, Huynh, Weller, Carrie)
2009 - 24% 4/17 (McGrath, Lechner, Woseley, Jones)
2010 - 33% 4/12 (Foster, Carpenter, Kristoff, Ingol)
2011 - 41% 9/22 (Fisher, Bass, Wells, Russell, Crutcher, Purdum, J. Johnson, L.Smith, Roback)
2012 - 57% 8/14 (Gibbons, Watson, Patterson, Reid, T. Davis, W. Johnson, Laseak, B. Brown)
2013 - 56% 10/18 (Mangen, Morgan, Cope, S. Smith, Quallen, Poling, Alexander, Basham, Sayles, Wood) plus Smart and Porter have played in 4/7 games
2014 - >53% 10/19 (Lowerey, Langenkamp, Pruehs, McCray,OUellette, Brunis, Walker, White, Brunson, Nelson) plus more by next year, I would guess

Interesting. This comes out the same, which I didn't expect. By this measure, 2008 was the best class, but 2012-2014 have all been very good, and 2014 may be even better than 2008.

Now, let's look at performance of the classes. The 2008 class would have mostly affected 2011-2012, and 2011 was a very good year, and 2012 should have been except for the incredible number of injuries). The weaker 2009-11 classes foretold the dip in 2013-14, and the stronger 2012-2014 classes will mostly affect 2015-2017 which should be strong years.

I did the same kind of analysis from a different perspective previously, which was how I came to predict that 2014 would be weak year, followed by stronger years in 2015-16. From the above, I think 2017 will be strong as well. Futhermore the close match between the second method and the first makes me think that 2015 will turn out to be a good class, too.

Last Edited: 10/22/2014 12:05:19 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

RE: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Posted: 10/18/2014 1:27:31 AM

Jeff McKinney wrote:

Jeff, as one of BA's chief complainers, I'd just like to mention that I don't think that the recruiting has gotten any worse. In fact, I agree with LC's analysis that it has improved noticeably since 2012 or so.

Of course, I think it took too long to reach "respectable" status, but we've been down this path so many times...

Last Edited: 10/18/2014 1:28:09 AM by Paul Graham

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Posted: 10/22/2014 12:45:17 PM

Paul Graham wrote:

...In fact, I agree with LC's analysis that it has improved noticeably since 2012 or so. ...

Given the timing of the jump, I'd say that there are a couple possible explanations that I can think of. One is that it is related to the IPF, and the other is that it is related to Haines. To me, recruiting quality has risen every year since 2011, and then in 2013 we saw a big shift to early verbals, and to recruits from in-state. In 2014 that trend continued.

Haines theory:
Haines took over recruiting sometime in early 2010. His first recruiting class was the 2011 class. It wouldn't be surprising if the longer he was in his job, the better he got better at identifying quality recruits, the more ties he has built up to high school coaches, and also the better he is at getting the players to commit, especially if he likes recruiting. That would explain steadily increasing quality, and steadily increasing local connections to recruits.

IPF theory:
The major contribution to fund the IPF was announced on Dec. 17th, 2010, too late to affect the 2010 class, but it would have probably started to affect the 2011 class, even though the IPF was a ways off. Slowly since then the design was refined, and construction was originally scheduled for November 2012, but delayed into the summer of 2013, with completion in early 2014. Certainly the IPF would have affected the 2013 class, since the plan was finalized, and the 2014 class, since construction was underway.

Either of these would explain the improvement. It could also be a combination of the two. Given the announcement of the new Academic Center, perhaps we'll see the quality of recruiting rise again next year.

Last Edited: 10/22/2014 12:47:26 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 2,895

Status: Offline

RE: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Posted: 10/22/2014 3:44:07 PM

Well, I guess our recruiting has gotten better. Problem is everyone in the MAC is recruiting better nowadays and we are still about middle of the pack. Add to that you win in college football with jr, sr and 5 yr srs and I am not happy with playing all these freshmen now. Then add to that our shift to more OHIO players and I really get unhappy. Said it once and will say it again: there are not enough good football players and there is too much competition for OHIO players to move the needle much with big majorities of players coming from OHIO. We need to recruit better in TX, FL, GA, NC and VA not to forget CALI, NEB and OK. And, if you look at a lot of MAC rosters they are doing just that.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: Polarization regarding recruiting analysis: Who's right?

Posted: 10/22/2014 5:41:07 PM

Casper71 wrote:

Well, I guess our recruiting has gotten better. Problem is everyone in the MAC is recruiting better nowadays and we are still about middle of the pack...

I guess that depends who you look at, and how you accurate you consider the ratings to be. Looking at 2015 is not going to be useful for two reasons. One is that the ratings for this year haven't all been done. The other is that Ohio is going to have an usually small class, which will move them to the bottom of the MAC since quantity is as important as quality.

If we look at 2014, and we accept the services as truth, and average all the services together, let's see how many 3-star recruits each MAC team had:
WMU 14.5
Toledo 5.5
Ohio 4.75 (5 in 247, 0 in Rivals, 8 in Scout, 5 in ESPN)
NIU 4.75
Ball State 4.5
Buffalo 3.5
Akron 3.5
BG 3.25
EMU 2.5
Kent 2.5
UMass 2.5
CMU 1.75
Miami 1.5

Obviously WMU's class is way off in it's own area, but among the rest of the MAC, I wouldn't call Ohio "middle of the pack".

Casper71 wrote:

Add to that you win in college football with jr, sr and 5 yr srs and I am not happy with playing all these freshmen now.

I think we'd all like to see them redshirt.

Casper71 wrote:

Then add to that our shift to more OHIO players and I really get unhappy. Said it once and will say it again: there are not enough good football players and there is too much competition for OHIO players to move the needle much with big majorities of players coming from OHIO. We need to recruit better in TX, FL, GA, NC and VA not to forget CALI, NEB and OK. And, if you look at a lot of MAC rosters they are doing just that.

I have mixed emotions about that. Recruiting Ohio players does build additional support for the program. For example, Ohio now has a cluster of support in Covington. If garnering more statewide support is part of the goal, recruiting from Ohio does help that.

I think the reason why Ohio recruited so much out of state in the early years is that Ohio was at the bottom of the ladder in those days. The only recruits from Ohio that Ohio was able to get were ones that had no other offers. Today that is no longer true. If Ohio and two other MAC programs offer a player, that player most likely will choose Ohio (if he chooses a MAC program).

If you look at the players from Ohio that Ohio made offers to, most of them that did not choose Ohio went to P5 schools, not another MAC school. As a result, I think that Ohio is getting a better quality of Ohio recruit than Ohio was getting even as recently as a few years ago.

Like you, I hope they keep getting some quality recruits from out of the state, but I don't mind seeing the class coming predominantly from Ohio.

Last Edited: 10/22/2014 5:44:42 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Showing Replies:	1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football Recruiting' Topics

There are 177 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

176 Guests
1 Registered User:
	Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

There are no other users looking at this page.