Isn't it true that the time period this data is based on reflects current recruiting, not the past two or three years? Ohio would be much higher in these rankings if the last two to three years were analyzed. For some reason, Ohio has taken a step back in getting commitments from highly touted players during the current recruiting season...thus, we rank low in this measure for current recruiting.
Yes, Jeff, the data in the first post is based entirely on the 2016 recruiting class, which is of course incomplete. It may change a bit before it's done, but the classes are half full, or better, for most schools. I agree that Ohio's class for 2016 so far has less than usual 3-star players, or at least less than the 2013-2015 classes. My gut tells me that is a normal pattern. The classes start with solid players that the coaches have seen in camps, then towards the end they add a few more players to the class that tend to be the ones in the class with the highest ratings. They also seem to be the ones that are most apt to have academic issues, and to not show up.
As for the data that I posted on the main page, that was based on the recruiting years of 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, which are the recruiting classes that make up the bulk of the teams at most schools. I applied a little more weight to the 2012 class than others, and less weight to the 2015 class. I debated including the 2011 class as well, but decided against it. That class would contribute fifth year seniors to this year's team, but I excluded it on the basis that the best players from the 2011 class may have already used up their eligibility.
In any cases, I noticed that the recruiting rankings are fairly stable from year to year for most schools, so changing my method to include 2011, or changing the weights of the various years wouldn't really change things very much.
Last Edited: 10/11/2015 11:38:51 PM by L.C.