Purdue recruiting

[OPHusker]

From Twitter

The 4 recruiting classes of predecessor of @JeffBrohm ranked No. 56 in nation in 2013; No. 71 in 2014; 68th in 2015; 73rd in 2016 by @Rivals. That comes to an average of 67. In less than 2 years, Brohm has taken @BoilerFootball to 1 bowl and is poised for breakout in Year 2.

https://twitter.com/tomdienhart1/status/1054833692194078720?=21

 

[ShortSideOption]

From Twitter

The 4 recruiting classes of predecessor of @JeffBrohm ranked No. 56 in nation in 2013; No. 71 in 2014; 68th in 2015; 73rd in 2016 by @Rivals. That comes to an average of 67. In less than 2 years, Brohm has taken @BoilerFootball to 1 bowl and is poised for breakout in Year 2.

https://twitter.com/tomdienhart1/status/1054833692194078720?=21

"You have to have top 15 classes to win championships!"

"It's about the jimmy's and joe's not the X's and O's"

All being proven wrong this year.

 

[bucktril]

If he were to leave Purdue for greener pastures, what schools/conference/region has a leg up? I don't know where he is from or where he played/coached previously.

 

[Ackos]

Bio
https://purduesports.com/coaches.aspx?rc=427&path=football

 

[joncarl]

From Twitter

The 4 recruiting classes of predecessor of @JeffBrohm ranked No. 56 in nation in 2013; No. 71 in 2014; 68th in 2015; 73rd in 2016 by @Rivals. That comes to an average of 67. In less than 2 years, Brohm has taken @BoilerFootball to 1 bowl and is poised for breakout in Year 2.

https://twitter.com/tomdienhart1/status/1054833692194078720?=21

One of my favorite responses to follow:

 

[BigMacHusker]

This is a fun exercise to do with Matt Campbell at Iowa State as well. Their last for classes have been 55, 44, 53 and 68. Had Purdy been an early rather than late arrival to campus they are probably sitting at 4-2 or 5-1 vs 3-3.

 

[ColoREDo]

Scott Frost said Jeff Brohm is a great coach.

 

[Deleted member 3561]

A few teams may get away with winning while not recruiting well. On average though, you have to recruit well to win championships.

 

[ShortSideOption]

A few teams may get away with winning while not recruiting well. On average though, you have to recruit well to win championships. And if you wanna win championships you definitely have to recruit well.

Wrong. Recruiting sites bump up your rankings when they figure out who the recruit is committing to and if they are contenders. I've watched three teams now in this conference beat the piss out of other teams that have higher recruiting rankings because of X's and O's. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Purdue have no business beating Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State per recruiting rankings, but they do. That's not even including Sparty and Dantonio's run they had.

The reason "higher recruiting rankings produce championships" is because recruiting sites give the teams that are expected to win and their recruits higher rankings. Conversely, why do you think schools like USC, A&M, Miami, UCLA, Texas, Tennessee, continually fail on the field despite having outstanding recruiting classes? X's and O's.

I'll take Rondale Moore and JD Spielman all day over Keyshawn Johnson and Tyjon Lindsey. And that would be a death sentence if rankings are all that matter.

 

[Deleted member 3561]

Wrong. Recruiting sites bump up your rankings when they figure out who the recruit is committing to and if they are contenders. I've watched three teams now in this conference beat the piss out of other teams that have higher recruiting rankings because of X's and O's. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Purdue have no business beating Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State per recruiting rankings, but they do. That's not even including Sparty and Dantonio's run they had.

The reason "higher recruiting rankings produce championships" is because recruiting sites give the teams that are expected to win and their recruits higher rankings. Conversely, why do you think schools like USC, A&M, Miami, UCLA, Texas, Tennessee, continually fail on the field despite having outstanding recruiting classes? X's and O's.

I'll take Rondale Moore and JD Spielman all day over Keyshawn Johnson and Tyjon Lindsey. And that would be a death sentence if rankings are all that matter.

yes there are exceptions to the rule, but on average recruiting sites get it right. I don't doubt that the recruiting services give the teams that are expected to win and their recruits higher rankings. However, I don't think that's the sole factor when determining stars and recruits scores, or whatever you wanna call it.

On the other hand, if you consider the initial grade as a kind of investment -- a projection of the how likely a player is of becoming an elite contributor compared to rest of the field -- in that case, you'd put your money with the "experts" over the chances of finding the proverbial diamond in the rough every time.

On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won almost exactly two-thirds of the time (66.4 percent of the time, to be exact), and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year. (The only exception, if it even qualifies, came last year, when "two-star" teams finished one game below .500 in head-to-head collisions with "one-star" teams. Elsewhere, the hierarchy held across every line.) The gap on the field also widened with the gap in the recruiting scores: At the extremes, "one-star" recruiting teams managed a grand total of six wins over "four-star" and "five-star" recruiters in 59 tries. Where a small handful of teams defied their rankings, none managed to do so as part of a larger group.

Which is, again, about as accurate as we can realistically expect from a system designed to predict an uncertain future.

So What? The evidence is overwhelming: Despite some obvious, anecdotal exceptions, on the whole recruiting rankings clearly are useful for creating a realistic baseline for expectations. But the narrower your focus, the less useful they will become.

The massively hyped, five-star recruit headlining your team's next recruiting class may be an irredeemable bust; he is also many times more likely than a scrappy three-star to pan out as an All-American and move on to the next level. Somewhere, an under-scouted afterthought with a chip on his shoulder will almost certainly go on to defy the odds, become a star and maybe win the Heisman Trophy. But that doesn't change the odds, which are against him becoming anything more than an obscure role player, at best. Inevitably, a team full of afterthoughts at the bottom of the rankings will defy the odds, catch fire, pull a few upsets and storm its way into a BCS bowl. But that doesn't change the odds, which are in favor of the same team dwindling on the edge of bowl eligibility. And just as inevitably, the eventual national champion will emerge from the ranks of the handful of teams that consistently come out on top on signing day.

The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure -- injuries, academics, even coaching -- individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...numbers-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right/

 

[Deleted member 3561]

To summarize, recruiting services are akin to a forecast. It's not always right, but it's a good baseline, and it usually is right, especially when the focus isn't narrow.

 

[NUinID]

Wrong. Recruiting sites bump up your rankings when they figure out who the recruit is committing to and if they are contenders. I've watched three teams now in this conference beat the piss out of other teams that have higher recruiting rankings because of X's and O's. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Purdue have no business beating Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State per recruiting rankings, but they do. That's not even including Sparty and Dantonio's run they had.

The reason "higher recruiting rankings produce championships" is because recruiting sites give the teams that are expected to win and their recruits higher rankings. Conversely, why do you think schools like USC, A&M, Miami, UCLA, Texas, Tennessee, continually fail on the field despite having outstanding recruiting classes? X's and O's.

I'll take Rondale Moore and JD Spielman all day over Keyshawn Johnson and Tyjon Lindsey. And that would be a death sentence if rankings are all that matter.

I pretty much agree with you what you are saying. But you know recruiting does matter. Good players matter.

You and I know that recruiting services are out to make money and it is a game. There are lots of good players that are underrated for a variety of reasons, most often because they haven't attended enough camps. They may have played a different position and they project to some other position at the next level. Their measurables may not be ideal. To short, they need to add weight, a 10th of a second slow.

What Iowa, Wisconsin and Purdue last week show us is that great coaching/scheme along with development and playing to your identity can do. All three of those teams have an identity on offense and they don't waver from it, and they are playing great team defense.

Those three teams are also great examples of how 1-2 great offensive players can really effect a game. Rondale Moore, J. Taylor, Iowa's TE really make a difference on their teams.

Nebraska is creating that identity on offense, lest hope they can start playing some good team defense. Nebraska will never out recruit OSU, PSU and Michigan. They will never out recruit the top SEC teams. That doesn't mean they can't beat them eventually.

 

[Deleted member 3561]

I pretty much agree with you what you are saying. But you know recruiting does matter. Good players matter.

You and I know that recruiting services are out to make money and it is a game. There are lots of good players that are underrated for a variety of reasons, most often because they haven't attended enough camps. They may have played a different position and they project to some other position at the next level. Their measurables may not be ideal. To short, they need to add weight, a 10th of a second slow.

What Iowa, Wisconsin and Purdue last week show us is that great coaching/scheme along with development and playing to your identity can do. All three of those teams have an identity on offense and they don't waver from it, and they are playing great team defense.

Those three teams are also great examples of how 1-2 great offensive players can really effect a game. Rondale Moore, J. Taylor, Iowa's TE really make a difference on their teams.

Nebraska is creating that identity on offense, lest hope they can start playing some good team defense. Nebraska will never out recruit OSU, PSU and Michigan. They will never out recruit the top SEC teams. That doesn't mean they can't beat them eventually.

Well put. Recruiting is one piece of success. There's numerous things that go into creating success such as: coaching, culture, having an identity, Xs and Os etc.

Teams at the most elite levels like Bama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio St and Oklahoma all have recruiting well as part of their recipe for success.

 

[ColoREDo]

Recruiting rankings are an educated guessing game but lets face it, Nebraska isn't going to get back into national prominence relying on Nebraska kids with big hearts. As much as many don't want to believe it to be so, the Huskers need to be getting kids from all over the country.

 

[canadianhusker]

Recruiting rankings are an educated guessing game but lets face it, Nebraska isn't going to get back into national prominence relying on Nebraska kids with big hearts. As much as many don't want to believe it to be so, the Huskers need to be getting kids from all over the country.

unless we can find a way to run the offence with 11 Fullbacks on the field. the coaches may never have to leave the state again for recruiting.