It’s not a mediocre class so it shouldn’t produce mediocre results.
3 Likes
Is this ranking based on just the high school signings or does it include the transfer portal guys?
Based just on the 17 coming from high school, by my count.
1 Like
What is the current ranking? I feel like our highest ever was Chuck’s first year when he landed that 4 star recruit who ended up being in the witness protection program. That class was like 74, no? I’d need to go back and look.
Updated: I confirmed I was correct (go me) as this current class appears to be ranked 76 (thank you internet). So what makes this our best class ever? The fact we only have 3 star players or the ranking. I’m confused.
The ranking applies to the 17 high school Seniors. It is likely that about a dozen of those guys will Redshirt next year. The guys most likely to be playing are the transfer portal guys. We have no rankings for that group.
2 Likes
I wonder if there is recruiting grade inflation like school grade inflation. I remember when I started following recruiting at the end of the Hoeppner era a 3 star in the MAC was special and a good MAC team would have 5 of them- now I would say a good MAC team has more 3 stars than 2 stars. But I dont think the MAC is any different than the early 2000’s in competitiveness.
Just my memory and opinion- I havent researched it
1 Like
Chuck Martin’s recruiting class rankings from 247 Sports
2022: Avg. rating - 0.8304, National ranking #76
2021: Avg. rating - 0.8151, National ranking #88
2020: Avg. rating - 0.8139, National ranking #93
2019: Avg. rating - 0.8077, National ranking #89
2018: Avg. rating - 0.7925, National ranking #130
2017: Avg. rating - 0.7978, National ranking #94
2016: Avg. rating - 0.7965, National ranking #93
2015: Avg. rating - 0.7979, National ranking #74
2014: Avg. rating - 0.7547, National ranking #125
The 2014 class included a handful of Treadwell recruits (e.g., Paul Moses, Mack Duffin, etc.). Yellow No. 5 - Martin’s first “full class” (2015) is actually one of his lowest rated classes. To Redsea’s point regarding grade inflation, I’d say that’s not likely. A cursory look at the numbers suggests that national ranking has risen in conjunction with the avg. rating. If avg. ratings are being “inflated” I’d expect the national rankings to remain more or less the same, but I haven’t run any statistical tests (e.g., t test) to confirm this.
So then if I’m reading you right, the national ranking doesn’t actually matter as much as the point ranking, otherwise the 74 we see in 2015 would mean more? (This is why I should have studied math instead of adult films).
3 Likes
Huh I read Your post and thought it did prove my theory. 2015 class and 2022 class virtually the same in the national rankings but a much better score this year
1 Like
I suppose it depends on what measure (avg. rating vs national ranking) you think is more important or more meaningful regarding the quality of the class. If you’re comparing the quality of the 2015 class to quality of any other Miami class, I’d say avg. rating is probably a more meaningful statistic. If you’re wanting to evaluate or measure where Miami stands on the national scene for any particular year, i.e., Miami vs. her peers, than I suppose national ranking is more meaningful.
1 Like
2015 vs. 2022… are simply two data points. You can compare 2015 (lower avg. rating [0.7979], but higher national ranking [74th]) to 2020 (higher avg. rating [0.8139], but lower national ranking [93rd]) and argue against grade inflation, but again that’s just two data points. Like I said I haven’t run any statistical tests to confirm or deny that grade inflation exists. Plus, you’d really need to run the numbers from other schools as well. I mean this really sounds like a job for Quinoaburger since I’m bumping up against the limits of my statistical knowledge and expertise.
3 Likes
National ranking isn’t just where the average rating is among all teams, it’s also based on how many recruits are in the class. A smaller higher average class can be below a larger lower average class.
2 Likes
As we would say on the old board…“Insightful”
So that suggests national ranking is a rather meaningless measure of the “quality” of the class.
The whole system needs to be reimagined now because of the transfer portal. Akron will probably be ranked last in the nation because someone said that they were strictly taking transfers. If those transfers are good, Akron might actually have the biggest improvement in talent/experience in the MAC. Should they be ranked last or first?
Also, traditionally recruiting rankings give a numerical value to each recruit and then add the values of all the recruits to get a total team value. If you signed 25 guys, it gave you a big edge over some other team that only signed 18. But sometimes the team who only signed 18 had a higher average recruiting value than the team that signed 25. Who should be ranked higher?
3 Likes
Recruiting rankings should always be taken with a heaping pile of salt. It’s such an inexact science.
That said, I do believe our class is very impressive this year.
3 Likes
He blinded me with science. SCIENCE!
1 Like
When you look over time OU under Solich never brought in highly rated classes. However they were always able to win (I know no MACC) on a consistent basis. They are able to develop talent, that is the key. Rankings kind of matter, but what the coaches do with them is what really matters.
2 Likes
Moorehawk is absolutely right. I haven’t done any kind of analysis to determine if there’s rating inflation, but the average rating isn’t directly correlated with the national ranking. In 2018 we had a decent average rating, but because we had very few open scholarships and only like a dozen recruits, our national ranking was terrible for that class.
2 Likes
As true as it is that Solich won without the highest ranked recruiting class, there’s a statistically significant relationship between number of 3 stars in a class on a team and winning percentage 3 years after they sign in the MAC.
And while an individual’s star ranking doesn’t necessarily indicate success, teams are more likely to have breakout players the more 3 stars they have, again, in the MAC.
2 Likes
This is 100% true