'Buffalo - 'kron without the recruiting'     That's a classic line.


Our 2013 class is 99th in the nation..and best was 80th over all the lyears listed?!  I highly suspect that we will be ranked better than 80th in the nation in all of the coming years for this group.

Those overall rankings clearly expose how off-base the rankings are compared to what actually obtains on the field.

If you follow the rankings awhile you realize that these services are primarily focused on the top25-40 teams in the country. Once you get below 50, the ratings don't have much meaning. Also, if you figure that just in FBS schools, about 2500 players are signed every year, it is no doubt true that the difference between player #1 and player #5 is much greater than the difference between player #2496 and player #2500. As you get further down the list, it becomes more a matter of building a culture of winning, and of coaching players up.

71--I think that's one of the disappointments with last season.  If we hadn't had that down stretch at the end, if we'd've finished with a few more wins, then another stellar/uptrend season would pay (have paid) off in recruiting (2013 recruits, subsequent years).

We'll get 'me this coming season!

Also, I think that a MAC CHAMPIONSHIP will give recruiting a boost.

Casper, don't get me wrong - I want better recruits, too - always. I just don't know a good way of measuring them, and I don't see any evidence that the recruiting services have any accuracy.

FWIW, the Huntington Herald Dispatch had an article about rating services and All America teams(don't remember the service that they used or which AA team, but in the top 2 teams for offense and defense, everybody was 3 or more stars except 5 2 stars and 1 unranked walk-on from you guessed it Nebraska . So there is some indication from that report that stars matter. I'd like to see how the all-MAC teams look vis-a-vis stars for the past few years to being it down to our level.

I would agree with this.I added up Rivals ratings, and came up with the following:
Total 5-Star Players signed by FBS schools- 34
Total 4-Star Players signed by FBS schools - 319
Total 3-Star Players signed by FBS schools - 1141
Total 2-Star Players signed by FBS schools - 1219

Figure that another 2000 or so 2-star players sign with FCS or smaller schools, and others end up walking  on, and there are perhaps 5000 2-star players.If you read the recruiting reports, the services spend a large amount of time writing about those four and five start athletes. The 3-star players get a lot less time apiece, and the 2-star athletes get almost no attention at all.

I would think most players are rated within +/- one star from their real ability. Thus if a player is rated 4-stars, he probably deserves at least 3, and if a player gets 2 stars, he probably doesn't deserve more than 3. That said, there are exceptions this this. Both Travis Carrie and Lavon Brazill probably should have been 4-star players, but were only 2, as they were overlooked.

Putting it another way, what I'm saying is that anyone rated 3-stars and up can probably play, but there is a huge pool of players rated 2-starsand they don't get a lot of attention. Once a player gets dumped into that group, they are largely forgotten by the services. Among that pool there are a handful of players that really deserve 4 stars, and a fairly high number that probably should be 3-star players, and there are also a lot who really should be 1-star players. Thus you could have 2 schools that appear to have similar classes, with all 2-star players, but one might have a lot of s/b 3-stars, while the other might have a bunch of s/b 1-stars. There just isn't enough accuracy when you get down into the lower ratings to make any kind of informed judgement between recruiting class 70 and recruiting class 100, and unfortunately that includes the entire MAC. Note that ESPN is honest about that, and doesn't even give class rankings below 40. CSTV, when they were doing rankings, did the same thing.

In the end, since I don't really think you can put a lot of stock in the rankings below the top 40 what can you use? These are the factors I look at:
1. Did the players have other offers? I would guess that there are so many 2-star players that most of them never get any offers at all. If other schools made offers, that's an indication that at least some other recruiters thought they can play.
2. Did the coaches get the players they wanted? Each year the coaches start out by making about 150 offers. Then, as some of those get accepted, or turned down, they may pull some offers, or issue others. If a kid is included in the first offers, that's a positive sign that the coaches got their first choice, someone they really wanted, and that they aren't "settling" for what's available instead.
3. My own personal observations from watching the film. I don't claim to be a scout, and I am wrong often, no doubt, but hey, at least I know I actually watched the film. Sometimes I think that the services watch a few seconds and push the 2-star button, and go on to the next guy.

By the way, my observation is that even one "positive" indicator for a player is a sign that he has a good future. Thus having 1-2 other offers is a positive indicator. So is having a 3 star rating from any service. Applying those tests to this class, most of the players did have other offers. Some of them did get a 3-star rating from at least one service. Most of them were among the first players chosen. From watching the film, I think that most of them are good players. Therefore I feel comfortable that this will turn out to be a decent class.

Should Ohio raise it's targets, and go after a higher grade of player? Maybe. Yet this was the first year, ever, when they class filled up early. Hopefully it will become an every year thing, and they can gradually continue to raise the targets.

One final comment - I suppose it would be possible for me to watch film of the players other schools have recruited. and to do the same thing for each of them. That would be a huge undertaking, and crazy though I may be, I'm not going to do that. Even Vandelay has stopped doing that, which is a shame - somebody should do it.

Which would matter if the All-American teams weren't biased towards successful BCS programs. I think if you look at NFL success among non-BCS schools you'll find more two star types.

Overlooked by the services not by Ohio, which is the point that establishes coaches know better than the services and should receive the benefit of the doubt in recruiting matters.

Bcat2--We get it; you think that the coaching staff are gods.  It is still possible to disagree with the coaches.  And it's possible to be correct in that disagreement.  Yes, I think that generally the coaches do a very fine job. It is just annoying to read nothing from you but 'the coaches are right, the coaches are right.'  Part of the fun is educated disagreement and suggestions.