1. You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
    Dismiss Notice

B1G 2018 All conference/Div 1 All Americans and their Recruiting ranking

Discussion in 'Recruiting' started by Bean, Nov 29, 2018.

  1. Bean

    Bean Grey Shirt 2 Year Member

    Likes Received:
    Counting this recruiting class, Nebraska has 19 "247 Composite" four star athletes on the team out of ~146, including 2019 class and walkons:

    2019 = 7 [Henrick, Robinson, Benhart, Robinson, McCaffrey, Chase, Noa Pola-Gates]
    2018 = 6 [Martinez, Jurgens, Washington, Jones, Wildeman, Tannor]
    2017 = 1 [McQuitty] 3 others left team
    2016 = 4 [Jackson, Rairdon, Dismuke, Farniok] 1 other left team
    2015 = 2 [Lee, Anderson] 2 others left team

    QB = 2
    RB = 2
    OL = 3
    CB = 1
    ATH = 2
    S = 3
    WR = 1
    W/SDE = 3
    TE = 1
    ILB = 1

    • Some of these 4 stars need to step up and play at the level they were ranked at.
    • Our 3 stars need to develop in Duvall's program [they all do] and learn their jobs in HCSF's system.
    • We need some walk-ons to develop and produce like they used to.

    In comparison to the top B1G teams: From 2016-2019 these teams signed this many "Consensus" 4 & 5 star players:

    B1G...5 Star/4 Star
    OSU:.... 18/42
    PSU:.... 6/31
    MU:.... 4/45

    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019 at 11:06 AM
  2. FeelLikeAStranger

    FeelLikeAStranger Keeping it Brockmire 15 Year Member

    Likes Received:
    Baker Steinkuhler

    Niles Paul

    Rankings vary
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
  3. Bean

    Bean Grey Shirt 2 Year Member

    Likes Received:
    Army and UCF are good examples/exceptions that show you don't have to have the best athletes but you do have to have the best TEAM.

    Army: 11-2
    UCF: 12-0

    But having great athletes are a big benefit/advantage if you have a good coach and program. Attitude and teamwork are essential.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2018
  4. Maverick

    Maverick Recruit

    Likes Received:
    Army and UCF are good examples/exceptions of why weak schedules do still exist. I'd love for UCF to be moved into one of the Power 5 to see how well they play, but UCF played zero ranked opponents. Army played one in Oklahoma (and played well) but the rest of their strength of schedule was so weak that they were ranked lower than UCF.
  5. Husker Country Doc

    Husker Country Doc All American 15 Year Member

    Likes Received:
    Don't forget ATTENDING a Rivals camp bumps your star rating, a little bit. Attend more camps, maybe get bumped a whole star, IDK.

    Also, the size of the alumni base, the veracity of the alumni base, affects recruiting "rankings" to a degree.

    I mean, cmon, the "raters" never see the truly top 250 athletes at a position on the field, at the same time. It a subjective system, and always needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Our coaches need to identify OUR needs, and identify the right athletes for our culture and system, and GET them.
  6. Bean

    Bean Grey Shirt 2 Year Member

    Likes Received:
    One of the reasons I go to the 247 Composite is that it uses all the rating systems to make their rating [Composite/consensus]. So if one system bumps a rating or is skewed some way it won't affect the composite ranking as much as the ranking that is skewed/bumped.

    This article sheds a little more light on this thread's subject:

    "Trieu said there is a common misconception about the star rankings because many view a three-star prospect as average. In reality, those players rank in the top half of all college football recruits because there are so few four- and five-star players. A two-star talent, meanwhile, is considered a player capable of playing Division I football somewhere.

    But Tom Lemming, who has been evaluating high school football prospects since 1978 and is considered among the godfathers of the genre, said to take recruiting stars with a grain of salt. Many online entities, he said, base the stars on the number of major college programs to have offered scholarships.

    So if a player is talented but hasn’t garnered offers from the likes of Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Notre Dame or Texas, for example, the stars will not necessarily pile up. And a player’s star value could be inflated simply based on the deluge of scholarship offers once one major program offers — a point Northwestern’s Fitzgerald emphasized as well.'"

    "One of the most important things to know when scrolling through recruiting rankings is that they can’t possibly be perfect. Human error, after all, is always present.

    "There is no one right way to predict human performance," said Scott Kennedy, Scout.com’s national director of scouting. "It’s impossible. You can get it right. You can scout trends and be right a lot more. But the people putting these together, we don’t agree ever. You can’t get the same top 10 out of two different guys. It just doesn’t happen that way."

    "Meyer is among the select few Big Ten coaches who acknowledge the importance of recruiting analysts and rankings, even if it’s to simply monitor top prospects. The primary objective, Kennedy said, is to serve fan interests. Fans, after all, are the ones who flock to the Scout, Rivals, 24/7 and ESPN websites to pay for content, review player commitments and post comments on message boards."

    "With thousands of prospects playing across the country, downgrades off a single performance aren’t unusual. Trieu noted his biggest gaffe was dropping running back Mark Ingram a star after watching perhaps the worst game of his high school career. Ingram went on to win the 2009 Heisman Trophy at Alabama."

    Not every outcome will hold true to star rating form, of course. Sports are played by humans, and the unpredictability of it all is what makes the drama so great. More than a decade worth of recruiting statistics, however, indicates any opportunity for coaches to find the best players is one worth taking, Kennedy said.

    Whether coaches opt to evaluate recruits their own way is up to them. But both Lemming and Kennedy noted avoiding a service readily available to everybody on the basis of principle does not serve coaches, whose role is to leave no stone unturned in recruiting and whose job security ultimately depends on winning."
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
  7. gardenjam

    gardenjam Red Shirt 2 Year Member

    Likes Received:

    Sports are played by humans, and the unpredictability of it all is whatmakes the drama so great.

    Wait until A.I. football
  8. Bean

    Bean Grey Shirt 2 Year Member

    Likes Received:

    "These four states are at the top when it comes to football recruiting:
    In the current recruiting cycle [2019], Texas, Florida, California and Georgia combined to produce 47 percent of the four and five-star recruits [High School] in the country, according to 247Sports. Each of those four states churned out at least 40 blue-chip high school players in the current 2019 recruiting class."

    I looked up all the All Americans for 2018 that I posted earlier in this thread to see where they all went to H.S. This is what I found:

    H.S. Location / # All Americans
    Texas = 14
    Florida = 13
    California = 11
    Georgia = 9
    Ohio = 6
    Mississippi = 5

    The top 5 state's High Schools produced 47% of the 2018 CFB Div 1 All Americans. These 53 athlete's ranking ranged from 2 - 5 Stars. The 6 states listed produced 51% of the 2018 All Americans. Looks like there is good reason to recruit from these states.

    Looking at the top 2018 Composite 247 Recruiting class Makeup to see how many were from the top 5 states producing All Americans, this is what they signed:

    2018 Team rank.......Signees from:
    1. Georgia:..... GA: 14...FL: 3......TX: 1
    2. Ohio State:... FL: 5......TX 2
    3. Texas:........ TX: 19.....CA: 2.....FL:1
    4. USC:.........CA: 12
    5. Alabama ..... FL: 4.....CA: 2......TX: 1
    6. PSU:....... FL: 2....TX: 2....OH: 1
    7. Clemson: GA: 5.....FL: 2....OH: 1

    23. NU:....GA: 2....CA: 2 [Was 3 - Bell left]....FL: 8.....TX: 2.....MS: 1

    2019 Team rank......Signess from:
    1. ALA: ........ FL: 5...GA: 2.....TX: 2.....MS: 1
    2. Georgia:.....GA: 7...FL: 4....TX: 1.....MS: 1
    3. Texas A&M:....TX: 17.....GA: 2.....FL: 2
    4. Oklahoma:.....TX: 9....CA: 3.....GA: 1.....FL: 1
    5. LSU:.......TX: 2....MS: 2.....GA: 1.....FL: 1
    6. Clemson: FL: 7.....GA: 7......CA: 1

    23. NU: ...... GA: 4 [if Mills Signs].....TX: 1

    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019 at 2:29 PM
  9. canadianhusker

    canadianhusker Red Shirt 10 Year Member

    Likes Received:
    nothing to add here except that i enjoyed this thread alot. information, research, intelligent back and forth conversation. thanks guys!
    Bean likes this.
  10. Bean

    Bean Grey Shirt 2 Year Member

    Likes Received:
    Where do college football's best players come from? Like in an election, winning in the battleground counties can produce classes full of recruits that make the difference in winning it all.


    Total/top recruits by state
    These 11 power states, most of which lie in ACC and SEC territories, produced 76.4 percent of all top recruits in the last 10 years.

    Top 4:
    1. Florida
    2. Texas
    3. Georgia
    4. California

Share This Page