Edit - I am rating all the recruiting classes using a simple formula, (3 pts for a P5 offer, 1 pt for a G5 offer). I consider actual offers to be more accurate than recruiting ratings. It's easy for an analyst to assign a rating number, but when a coach makes an offer, he's putting his money where his mouth is.

I am listing the number of top players (6 or more points) recruited by each team, plus the average for each team. The former measure gives you a measure of the top of the class, the latter a measure of the depth of the class. The teams are being placed in order by the average points per recruit.

This took awhile as I had to cross-reference several recruiting services to find all the offers. The number before each team is the average points per recruit. After the team name comes the number of "highly sought recruits", and how many points each got:

Results:
4.67 WMU - 6 (Goulbourne 45, French 15, Tranquil 14, Tucker 7, Bellamey 7, Spencer 6)
4.57 Ohio - 6 (D. Williams 45, Christian 16, Hagan 15, Howell 12, Ball 8, McKnight 7)
4.27 Toledo - 6 (Green 27, Landry 15, Covington 13, Harris 7, Thompkins 7, Childress 6)
4.00 Kent - 3 (McRae 41, Simmons 14, Jones 11)
3.75 BG - 4 (Sotolongo 35, Lamar 11, Horstman 11, Bozeman 6)
3.16 Buffalo - 2 (Hawkins 23, Reed 12)
2.86 Miami - 5 (Bahk 13, Leever 8, McMullen 8, Allen 6, Ross 6)
2.30 NIU - 5 (Tears 21, Hughes 11, Pugh 10, T. Smith 7, Brown 6)
2.12 U.Mass - 3 (Lindsay 17, Thomas 13, Franklin 8)
1.56 EMU - 3 (Turner 14, Snelling 12, Figueroa 7)
1.31 Akron - 1 (Jordan 12)
1.04 Ball State - 2 (Thurman, 9, Gilbert 6)
0.50 CMU - no highly sought recruits

The most highly sought after recruits:
45 Goulbourne, WMU
45 Williams, Ohio
41 McRae, Kent
37 Sotolongo, BG
27 Green, Toledo
23 Hawkins, Buffalo
21 Tears, NIU
17 Linday, UMass
16 Christian, Ohio
15 French, WMU
15 Hagan, Ohio
15 Landry, Toledo
14 Tranquil, WMU

Another way to look at this data would be the percentage of players each team took that had no other FBS offers:
Buffalo 26%
Toledo 27%
WMU 29%
Miami 31%
Kent 43%
BG 46%
NIU 50%
Ohio 57%
Akron 63%
U.Mass 64%
CMU 67%
EMU 68%
Ball St 75%

This is probably what hurt Ohio's ranking in the national rankings. How good or bad Ohio's class turns out to be may well end up depending on how good the mystery players end up being. In years past they often ended up being some of the best players, so I'm not concerned about it. Some like Seymour, Grimes, Glasco, M. Williams, Arp, Key, and Croutch I think will be very good.

As I looked through this from a perspective of what other offers the players had, some thoughts that occurred to me:
1. Ohio's class and WMU's class are remarkably similar, except that Ohio's class includes a lot of under the radar players, where WMU's class has more players that had a single other offer.
2. Miami beat almost no P5 schools, but kicked butt against MAC schools
3. Some schools, like Miami, NIU, and Buffalo (if I recall correctly) beat out a ton of FCS schools. I awarded no points for those. Had I awarded points for that, they would have done better in this ranking.
4. Certain schools really got beat a lot. I saw Ball State, Akron, EMU, CMU, and Toledo on the losing side a lot.
5. Ohio was rarely on the losing side against other MAC schools. Mostly they were going for a higher grade of player, and lost to P5 schools. Where they did lose to MAC schools, it was on highly competitive players.
6. Like Ohio, Miami's recruits included what may be twins, in their case, from Oxford, Ohio, with no other offers.
7. Buffalo and Kent have better classes than the rankings give them credit for. Meanwhile CMU and Ball State appear significantly worse than the rankings show them.

Players Ohio lost to other MAC Schools, and their points:
Bahl, Miami 13
Snelling, EMU 12
Leever, Miami 8
Bellamy, WMU 7
Thompkins, Toledo 7
Phouthavon, BG 6
Allen, Miami 6
Lautanen, BG 5
Miller, BG 4
Maybry, Buffalo 4
Zielinski, Miami 4
Osborne, Buffalo 2
Jones, BG 2
Bell, Toledo, 2
Murrer, Miami 2
McKinley Lewis, Toledo 1
Average 5.3, and of the 40 players with 6 points or more taken in by the entire rest of the MAC, Ohio had offers to 7 of them.

Against other schools, only Miami really got the best of Ohio. Ohio was:
Miami 1-5
BG 3-4
Toledo 4-3
Buffalo 2-2
Ball St 1-0
Akron 4-0
WMU 2-1
Kent 2-0

Overall Conclusion - I believe Ohio's class is much better than #6. How much better depends on the under the radar players. Ohio was very aggressive about going for a better grade of player than they have in the past, and they were able to land a fair number of them.

OK, I finished my analysis, and edited it into the post above. When fall comes, I should revisit this, and remove players from all teams that are no-shows, giving a more accurate number.

OK, I cleaned up the table with some minor changes, taking into account ESPN data. ESPN, I noticed, also includes transfers, and I saw that Buffalo picked up two from UAB.

I also found that ESPN includes one additional bit of data, on players classed as "LQ", or "Late qualifiers". What exactly are those? I know about qualifiers, and I know about non-qualifiers (they end up at JUCO), and I'm aware that some schools accept partial qualifiers (they enroll, but aren't eligible to play), but I'm not familiar with late qualifiers.

The highly sought recruit for WMU, Goulbourne, is listed at "LQ", and there are a few others scattered around the conference. What are they? Can they enroll? Can they play? Are they like a grayshirt, enrolling a semester late?

Colorado, I think you're replying to a spoof ID. This board used to be too classy for that kind of stuff, but the way things are going lately on here, it isn't surprising, I guess.

Maybe an "LQ" is someone who should have been in the 2014 recruiting class, but who didn't qualify, and who continued in school, and who is now eligible, sort of like a post-graduate? Is that it?

Colorado, the younger Solich was the fired up assistant to a head coach who thought "dad gum it" was going off on his team. Solich was key to that coach winning 250 games faster than any coach in Div 1-A history. Given that model I understand that he might feel that someone needs to stay under control and it is best if it is the head coach.

Not sure what the issue is. Why can't people respond to me? I'm a true fan of Ohio football, walk-ons and the U.S of A!

Got Frank?!

Haha, figures. I guess I could have saved a lot of work. Apparently there is some website that does this. They use a much more sophisticated system than I do (I discriminated only between P5 and G5 offers, while they do a sliding weight for each team, where an Ohio State offer is worth more than an Iowa State offer), but their results are about the same, except that Ohio edged out WMU for the #1 class in the MAC, not the reverse:
http://www.rankbyoffers.com/
https://twitter.com/OhioCoachGeorge

Here are the 2015 rankings:
http://www.rankbyoffers.com/2015fbteams/
The highest ranked G5 teams:
#40 UCF
#44 USF
#61 SMU
#64 Cincinnati
#69 Georgia Southern
#70 FAU
#71 Marshall
#72 Boise State
#74 MTSU
#75 S. Alabama
#76 San Jose st
#77 Temple
#78 Ohio

Other MAC teams:
# 82 WMU
#83 Toledo
#88 NIU
#91 BG
#93 Miami
#94 Kent
#104 Ball State
#106 EMU
#111 Buffalo
#115 UMass
#124 CMU
#126 Akron

I have one quarrel with their methodology. They use offer data from two sources, ESPN and Rivals. Unfortunately, ESPN does not do a good job of reporting offers for G5 recruits, so this method will artificially lower the ratings of G5 teams. I primarily used offer data from 247Sports and Rivals. 247Sports has much more offer data on G5 recruits than ESPN does. Scout.com would also be a better choice for G5 data than ESPN, but Scout's new website is user-hostle, so I avoid it.

Last year's ratings:
2014
#65 Toledo
#68 WMU
#70 NIU
#89 Ohio
#96 Miami
#97 BG
#98 Ball State
#107 UMass
#109 Buffalo
#110 Akron
#120 Kent
#122 EMU
#125 CMU

Here's an interesting article that argues that context is also important in evaluating recruiting classes, and it asks questions like:

http://tinyurl.com/k66k7qy
Based on schemes, I would say that offensively Ohio needs to be great on the offensive line, and defensively, they need to have great defensive backs.

Offensive: If the line is doing it's job, and creating space, the offense works. When the offensive line was Strum-Carlotta-Allen-Herman-Flading, the offense worked, but with so many Freshmen last year, the offense didn't work. Did this recruiting class help solve the problem? Well, they did add two JUCO linemen, and them, combined with the excellent Freshmen from a year ago, hopefully will solve the line woes. It also added two QBs, who were badly needed.

Defensive: The new defensive scheme works by getting extra players in the box to stop the run, but the negative side is that it leaves DBs exposed, with no backup. To work, the defense needs cornerbacks and safeties that can cover opposing WRs 1:1, and who are sure open field tacklers. Did this recruiting class address that situation? Without a doubt the strongest part of this class was the DBs. It also added some really good DTs, and some solid linebackers.

My conclusion is that this class will be better in real life than it is on paper, and it's very good on paper. It will be better because it is strong exactly where it is needed, and then covers the other positions reasonably well, too.