Bobcat Attack - Ohio Football Recruiting - How do we like the early verbals now?

Ohio Football Recruiting Topic

Topic: How do we like the early verbals now?

Page: 1 of 1

mail

person

colobobcat66

1/26/2011 1:19 PM

With apparently our second decommit mentioned today, I wonder if these early verbals are so good after all. Like many have said, in the past we get so many surprises on signing day. Now we're getting them early. I can't wait to see who we really end up with.

mail

person

Doc Bobcat

1/26/2011 1:31 PM

colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more

No big deal....yet.

Ask me again if we get 1 or 2 more decommits.

Some people think this was going to be a big number class.....I think we've just about reached our max.

My biggest concern is that these 2 were 2 of our best verbals talent wise....again no big surprise....we see the talent and so do others.

mail

person

L.C.

1/26/2011 2:16 PM

Ohio loses a few from time to time. So do other schools. Ohio also picks up some that were previously committed elsewhere, such as Taylor Price, who had previously committed to Akron. It's no big deal, but just a part of the process. It also explains why there's s signing day, to fix things in stone, and stop all the craziness. Even knowing that there may be some decommits, the early verbals are great. For the kid it takes some of the pressure off as he can tell a recruiter, "sorry, I'm already committed". From the schools perspective they probably end up signing 95% of the verbals, compared to 30% of the ones who won't go that far.

Last Edited: 1/26/2011 2:17:50 PM by L.C.

mail

person

Speaker of Truth

1/26/2011 2:28 PM

Who are the 2?

mail

person

Doc Bobcat

1/26/2011 2:33 PM

the123kid wrote:expand_more

Who are the 2?

Brandon Jackson Clev. St. Ed. 6'4"-340 OL to WVU

Jamaal Merritt DeMatha 6'0"-180 WR/DB

mail

Mike Coleman

1/26/2011 4:09 PM

colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more

Both of these guys first committed in mid-January. What is early about that? Should we wait til everyone else in the world commits somewhere and then hold one recruiting weekend a few days before Signing Day for the leftovers?

mail

person

colobobcat66

1/26/2011 4:19 PM

Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more

colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more

Early=pre signing day in this context. I'm not suggesting we wait until the last weekend-ridiculous.

mail

Mike Coleman

1/26/2011 4:43 PM

Then what are you suggesting? We basically have three or four recruiting weekends in January. Again, nothing early about that.

mail

John C. Wanamaker

1/26/2011 4:51 PM

EArly would be May through probably September. Nothing wrong with how we are doing things.

mail

person

colobobcat66

1/26/2011 4:53 PM

Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more

Then what are you suggesting? We basically have three or four recruiting weekends in January. Again, nothing early about that.

I was just alluding to the comments about having no surprises on signing day in the past and this year we have all the verbals known. And then the verbals decommit after we get so excited about the verbals. I was just wondering if the folks like hearing ahead of time and having the verbals not sign versus just knowing on signing day. Really not saying anything about when we recruit, have visits, etc.

mail

Mike Coleman

1/26/2011 5:00 PM

colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more

Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more

Then what are you suggesting? We basically have three or four recruiting weekends in January. Again, nothing early about that.

Ok. I see now. That makes sense.

I had ]figured the verbals weren't rolling in much earlier than in previous years, but the players were publicizing the commits to the services more this year. But that's just my take on it all.

mail

person

Monroe Slavin

1/31/2011 12:47 AM

Clearly shaping up to be a good class for us, at least. Any thoughts on how you experts here and outsiders from respectable viewpoints now see our harvest vs. the rest of MAC and on a national scale?

Is it tingling..is it startin' to feel like what such as Duck and Horned Frog and Ute musta thought was beginning to look possible?

Last Edited: 1/31/2011 12:50:09 AM by Monroe Slavin

mail

person

ytownbobcat

1/31/2011 9:35 AM

Five 3 star recruits in this class. The transfers, Robeck, Blankenship, Prior , Kozak were all 3 star recruits out of high school. You could say we have 9 or 10 players coming in that are at the 3 star level.
Of course this is all "day before signing day" banter. Some will outperform /underperform.

mail

person

Casper71

1/31/2011 1:08 PM

Like many on this board, I think this is going to be a good class by MAC standards. As has been stated, according to Rivals we have 5 three star recruits and a number two ranking in the MAC.

What is disappointing, however, is that when one looks at Marshall and most of the CUSA, many have over 10 three star recruits. And, even more disappointing, WKU and FIU of the Sun Belt are both at 10 three star recruits.

So, while I think we are fine in comparison to the MAC if we really want to mve up in the D1 football world we need a lot more three star recruits EVERY year. After all, would you rather have 20 three star recruits on the roster or 40?

mail

person

colobobcat66

1/31/2011 3:40 PM

Casper71 wrote:expand_more

I'm with you on this. I think the number of 3 stars in general have been increased, but we aren't necessarily moving to the next level recruit -wise even though this appears to be a pretty good class. Another thing is that several of the players are 3 stars on other sites.

mail

person

TomCat

1/31/2011 3:42 PM

When measuring a particular class, I always factor in 3 Stars that appear on Scout and ESPN, but don't appear on Rivals A quick count from those sites gives us 5 more, I think. Counting in D1 transfers, though I'm not sure when they can play, the number in this class gets to around fifteen 3 Stars.

mail

person

Casper71

1/31/2011 4:00 PM

That's why previously I asked: is there one of these sites that is generally considered "more accurate"? Seems to me you need some consistency in using the star ratings. I think we all also agree that we need more of them to get to where we wannabe.

mail

person

Checkrama

1/31/2011 6:43 PM

I personally tend to think that the recruiting sites don't spend much time looking at most of our recruits, so it's hard to put too much stock into the majority of their ratings for the MAC. We've probably seen as much from highlight videos as Scout or Rivals has watched. I think the better measure is to look at how many offers a guy has from schools that have actually scouted them in person, rather than some half a$$ rating of a recruiting site.

Last Edited: 1/31/2011 6:45:27 PM by Checkrama

mail

Ohio Hoops

2/1/2011 8:49 AM

If anyone cares to do it here's some interesting reading for the day on how effective or uneffective the star ranking system is. It's from one of the best college football blogs out there right now, Dr. Saturday (which is owned by Yahoo which bought Rivals so keep that in mind).

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-All-American-track?urn=ncaaf-311830

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-track-record-at-th?urn=ncaaf-312394

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-overachieving-team?urn=ncaaf-313921

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-underachieving-tea?urn=ncaaf-314624