L.C., correct me if I am wrong but they would be doing the exact same thing for all MAC teams/players. It may be wrong but it is consistent. There is not any conspiracy against OHIO. While there may be one vs the MAC. The bottom line is still why is it we rate so far down the list most years?

As we have said, it is the "recruiting philosophy" this staff follows and it pretty much has never changed. I continue to believe this philosophy just doesn't get enough good players on the field at the same time to win a MACC but it does usually make us respectable.

That's fine but I also keep saying for us 71 guys time is running out and I would sure like to see one more MACC in my lifetime. Younger guys can afford to be patient but I would think not winning 1 MACC in 11 years has to be bothering everyone...including this staff. If they continue with this philosophy, I just don't see things changing.

Just a quickie here...I noticed I have been talking about my days on this earth way too much! But, I am in good health and I hope to be around for a long time so I will try to be a bit more patient:)

Exactly, Casper. It's not a conspiracy against Ohio; they do the same thing to all players for all MAC teams. That doesn't mean, however, that the effect is even:
1. Some teams have few players that hadn't been previously rated, so their ratings were unaffected. Those players counted as points for their team, and still do.
2. Other teams had players that were unrated by everyone. Those player did not count as points for their team before this, and still count for no points.
3. Some teams had players like Trotter and Fernandez, who were previously rated highly by other services, but unrated by 247Sports. Those players previously counted as points for their team, but after this adjustment lost half their
points.

None of that really matters, though. The real question is, can these kids play, and can they be coached up? That we will find out on the field over the next few years.

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that the philosophy of recruiting has never changed. Recruiting is certainly very different now than it was even 5 years ago. Prior to 2012 the majority of the recruits were from around the country. Prior to 2012 the majority of recruits were not people who had been to an Ohio camp, and had been seen by the coaches in actual action. These days the bulk of the recruits are from the region, and are players who have been to an Ohio camp. You'd think that would lead to less negative recruiting surprises, and more accurate selection of under-the-radar players.

It's also true that each year the target does seem to move a little higher, and each year the class picks Ohio over more other offers. It may not move as fast as we'd like, but it is moving.

Particularly interesting to me this year was QB recruiting. When it came to QB recruiting the coaches did what I have suggested doing for more positions - they raised the bar. They offered a lot of QBs but only high quality QBs. They didn't make offers to lesser QBs just to make sure there was one in the class. The risk of setting a high bar is that you may end up with none. The benefit is that if you get one, it will be a very good one. I don't think a QB in this class was essential, so I was glad they took that approach, and I'd like to see a little more of it at other positions in the future.

One other comment is that really, this was a small class. There are only 19 Freshmen in it, which is smaller than recent classes. Also, everyone is qualified, so while it may not look as good on paper as 2015, the quality of the ones who actually show up in the fall should be about as good.

Next year will be interesting - that will be the year when we find out if Christian and D. Williams re-appear. If they failed to qualify, it takes 2 years for them to re-establish eligibility. My suspicion, with nothing whatsoever to back it up, is that D. Williams is enrolled in a JUCO somewhere, and that he took this year off of football to get his grades up. If so, he most likely will play next fall for them as a Redshirt Freshman, and be eligible to transfer to an FBS school. We shall see, however, if either appear in the class of 2017.

Years ago we had Vandelay sports who reviewed MAC recruiting. He tried, and he discovered what he could about each kid, but in those days there wasn't much information to go on, so his reviews weren't all that accurate.

Next came the recruiting services, complete with stars and everything. Loaded with money from internet mania, they tried to cover all the recruits, but in time budget cutbacks came, they had to focus their money where they get a return, and that wasn't on the 2-star recruits, nor on the G5. They tried to take over the forum business, too, and even tried to acquire BA, I believe. It didn't work, and wasn't profitable, so slowly they have eased back their coverage of two star recruits and G5 schools. Instead of getting daily/weekly updates on their recruits, they now punch the names in on signing day, and just assign their lowest possible rating, making their ratings of questionable value at best.

Yet, today we have one thing we didn't have before, at least for now. Thanks to HUDL, today we can easily look at video of any recruit, Ohio or otherwise. Is it time for coverage of MAC recruiting to go full circle? I think so. What I'd love to see happen is for Vandelay, or someone else, to take the time to look at film of all MAC recuits, and rate them comparatively. If he looked first at, say, every DT recruited to the league, then every DE, and so on, he ought to be able to come up with a rating of MAC recruiting that was actually close to accurate. It could have the diligence of Vandelay, but with real data to work with.