Pac 12 Recruiting Rankings through the Petermen Era
Comments
-
-
Hmmmm Now that we are done jerking off over being the tallest midget, in the spirit of having high standards I'm thinking we need to look around the CFP landscape and pick a handful of programs to compare our rising talent with.Swaye said:Great fucking jerb @DoogCourics and @UW_Doog_Bot I have been saying for ages that in addition to never using composite (because fuck ESPN they couldn't find the WC on a map), we should also NEVER use class ranks. It weights size too heavily, which is stupid, and also the reason @Doog_de_Jour doesn't like me.
The only way looking at recruiting makes sense is using 247 rankings, because while not perfect it is the best of the available bunch, and looking at per recruit average. Who cares if you get 28 kids that are okay, I'd rather have 15 that kick ass.
Funny when you look at this on a per recruit basis, Pete has kicked Oregons ass 4 years straight (BONEM), though to be fair it was by the narrowest of margins this year. Essentially, this chart shows we are reaching the promised land of the best recruiting in the Pac12. Too bad the land is inhabited by dwarfs, but still. Good chit.
Clemson.(I think I'll do a historical dive as well to see how the developmental path lines up)
Bama
ND
Ohio State
Georgia
Michigan
Edit:Oklahomo
Someone with a better twatter game than me and a better eye for graphics should also be publishing this stuff. Happy to do the work and give someone else the credit so long as it gets out there.
@CokeGreaterThanPepsi @Dennis_DeYoung @AIRWOLF ?? -
I sometimes like to daydream about what I could beat a TRex at, and pick up sticks is one of those things.GrundleStiltzkin said:
-
So you can definitely see where we've come from. The next few years should put us squarely in the CFP hunt with the talent we have. Some luck and a talented qb(Skinny please!) could be enough to put us over the top.
Next up, historic look at Clemson Dabo era vs. Peterman era. -
Clearly right in the middle of tier 2. That is excellent. Push it up one more point and you are in rarified air.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you can definitely see where we've come from. The next few years should put us squarely in the CFP hunt with the talent we have. Some luck and a talented qb(Skinny please!) could be enough to put us over the top.
Next up, historic look at Clemson Dabo era vs. Peterman era. -
As I kind of build out my own database it will be interesting to look at some of the historic trends and numbers. There seems to be a definite "Tier 1" recruiting range at around 91-94 avg which we are currently just outside of the last two years. Per what DDY says, close just a few more of our top targets and we are right there. There's a lot of variance for even the blue bloods year to year and you know there's only one team that's consistently seeming to defy that.Swaye said:
Clearly right in the middle of tier 2. That is excellent. Push it up one more point and you are in rarified air.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you can definitely see where we've come from. The next few years should put us squarely in the CFP hunt with the talent we have. Some luck and a talented qb(Skinny please!) could be enough to put us over the top.
Next up, historic look at Clemson Dabo era vs. Peterman era.
If I have the time, feel ambitious enough, and get some help from the other recruitknicks, we might even be able to compile a "talent database" that's more or less able to compare current total team talent etc.
It would be similar to @YellowSnow's short hand blue chip ratio count but with numbers instead.
Start combining those metrics up with some in-season metrics and we are starting to look like the Bad News Bears to your Morris Buttermaker.
Cool chit. -
I wonder if you could simplify things and get a more accurate picture if you just compared the average of the top 10-15 recruits in each class? Actual class quality seems much more heavily dependent on quality at the top rather than the mediocre depth.Swaye said:Great fucking jerb @DoogCourics and @UW_Doog_Bot I have been saying for ages that in addition to never using composite (because fuck ESPN they couldn't find the WC on a map), we should also NEVER use class ranks. It weights size too heavily, which is stupid, and also the reason @Doog_de_Jour doesn't like me.
The only way looking at recruiting makes sense is using 247 rankings, because while not perfect it is the best of the available bunch, and looking at per recruit average. Who cares if you get 28 kids that are okay, I'd rather have 15 that kick ass.
Funny when you look at this on a per recruit basis, Pete has kicked Oregons ass 4 years straight (BONEM), though to be fair it was by the narrowest of margins this year. Essentially, this chart shows we are reaching the promised land of the best recruiting in the Pac12. Too bad the land is inhabited by dwarfs, but still. Good chit.
Simplified for morons:
Class A: 10 5 stars and 10 1 stars = average 3
Class B: 20 3 stars = average 3
Both classes would get the same average but one is significantly more desirable/impactful than the other. -
@UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot said:
So you can definitely see where we've come from. The next few years should put us squarely in the CFP hunt with the talent we have. Some luck and a talented qb(Skinny please!) could be enough to put us over the top.
Next up, historic look at Clemson Dabo era vs. Peterman era.
Data for your Dabo vs Peterman.
Washington Recruiting:
2015 Recruiting Class - 25th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 6 Four Stars - 17 Three Stars - 85.80 Average - 6 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 37th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 5 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 87.18 Average - 5 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 22nd in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 88.22 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 13th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 11 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 90.45 Average - 11 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 16 Four Stars - 7 Three Stars - 90.70 Average - 16 Blue Chip
UW rated much much better by 247 with a higher average rating per player, better ranking classes, and more Blue Chip players.
Clemson Recruiting:
2009 Recruiting Class - 247 Ratings Unavailable
2010 Recruiting Class - 247 Ratings Unavailable
2011 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 19 Three Stars - 84.80 Average - 11 Blue Chip
2012 Recruiting Class - 23rd in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 12 Three Stars - 87.85 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2013 Recruiting Class - 15th in Country - 0 Five Star - 10 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 88.04 Average - 10 Blue Chip
2014 Recruiting Class - 24th in Country - 0 Five Star - 8 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 88.15 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2015 Recruiting Class - 10th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 87.38 Average - 11 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 8th in Country - 2 Five Star - 12 Four Stars - 6 Three Stars - 90.62 Average - 14 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 19th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 6 Three Stars - 91.64 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 6th in Country - 5 Five Stars - 7 Four Stars - 4 Three Stars - 92.71 Average - 12 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 14th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 11 Four Stars - 16 Three Stars - 89.03 Average - 13 Blue Chip -
TYFYS but I had already pulled it. Go to class calculator and you can pull the individual classes further back. You guys ready for a boner inducing chart?DoogCourics said:
@UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot said:
So you can definitely see where we've come from. The next few years should put us squarely in the CFP hunt with the talent we have. Some luck and a talented qb(Skinny please!) could be enough to put us over the top.
Next up, historic look at Clemson Dabo era vs. Peterman era.
Data for your Dabo vs Peterman.
Washington Recruiting:
2015 Recruiting Class - 25th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 6 Four Stars - 17 Three Stars - 85.80 Average - 6 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 37th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 5 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 87.18 Average - 5 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 22nd in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 88.22 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 13th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 11 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 90.45 Average - 11 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 16 Four Stars - 7 Three Stars - 90.70 Average - 16 Blue Chip
UW rated much much better by 247 with a higher average rating per player, better ranking classes, and more Blue Chip players.
Clemson Recruiting:
2009 Recruiting Class - 247 Ratings Unavailable
2010 Recruiting Class - 247 Ratings Unavailable
2011 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 19 Three Stars - 84.80 Average - 11 Blue Chip
2012 Recruiting Class - 23rd in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 12 Three Stars - 87.85 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2013 Recruiting Class - 15th in Country - 0 Five Star - 10 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 88.04 Average - 10 Blue Chip
2014 Recruiting Class - 24th in Country - 0 Five Star - 8 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 88.15 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2015 Recruiting Class - 10th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 87.38 Average - 11 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 8th in Country - 2 Five Star - 12 Four Stars - 6 Three Stars - 90.62 Average - 14 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 19th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 6 Three Stars - 91.64 Average - 8 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 6th in Country - 5 Five Stars - 7 Four Stars - 4 Three Stars - 92.71 Average - 12 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 14th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 11 Four Stars - 16 Three Stars - 89.03 Average - 13 Blue Chip
This doesn't count Dabo's beginning season as an interim coach but does start at his first full season. It actually looks like he came in with moar talent than peterman did as well since the 2009 class was 89.81 and the previous year to that was also in the 89's.
Dabo won his title at #7 on this chart. Also the first year he recruited above 90 pts. average. -
Romar inbounds play?GrundleStiltzkin said:
