Recruiting - ISU is getting more talent

[DurangoCy]

I loosely follow recruiting, but have often wondered if we are really gaining ground on other teams when I see the individual recruit commitments. When CW was interviewing Joel Klatt, he mentioned that the middle of our roster is finally where it needs to be. Being a numbers guy, I went back to 2010 and averaged the last five 247 class recruit average ratings (2020 goes back to the 2016 class, 2019 to 2015, etc) to try and see where the 85 man roster talent was rated out of HS. I did this for the 10 teams we play each year and then threw in Clemson and Alabama for S&Gs.

Some observations:
-Next year (2020) ISU may pass Tech for 7th in overall team talent in the B12. That is the first time ISU, KSU, and KU weren't all automatically bringing up the rear.
-ISU has trended solidly up over the last half decade, 2020 will be Campbell's 5th class.
-The majority of the 10 teams we play every each year have been in the 0.84 to 0.86 range, and next year will be the first year that ISU has bootstrapped their way into the 0.84 and above level.
-TCU isn't going anywhere.
-**** Baylor
-KSU's past success with their mediocre talent is amazing.
-The 5 year period of recruiting leading into 2017 for the B12 wasn't great.
-Clemson has hit the NOS in recent years and won two NCs vs. far more talented Alabama teams.
-...Alabama, Roll Tide.
-I was surprised that in theory Texas has been a step ahead of OU in the talent department for the last 6 years.

I think it's too optomisitic to think ISU will ever get to the .88 average recruit level, which appears to be a pretty big delta between elite and solid power 5. If Campbell stays and we can get to a solid 0.85 to 0.86 score, I think we can win alot of games. ISU 2019 average = .8533 and 2020 average =.8528
I think Campbell has also stemmed some of the attrition that CPR struggled with, which is huge too.

*Without way more analysis, I don't think we can overlook that fact that the average recruit scores may be going up over the last decade. However, I think this still shows that ISU is gaining ground.

 

[DurangoCy]

Year by Year Average 247 recruting rankings

 

[Rabbuk]

Little known fact I was actually recruited by coach Rhodes but was too heavy to play line at 165 pounds coming out of h.s.

 

[somecyguy]

Excellent analysis. While there is no doubt that Campbell is recruiting better than any recent staff, looking at the teams recruit rankings, it's hard not to suspect some level of grade inflation happening. Recruiting is not a zero sum game, so I realize there will be some variation between the numbers, but what are the chances that every team on that list has increased the level of talent per 247 over that time frame. Logic would suggest if ISU is signing better players than they have in the past, someone else is missing out on those players.

It's all relative and essentially doesn't matter because the talent will show up on the field, but an interesting argument in my mind nevertheless.

 

[cymonw1980]

Year by Year Average 247 recruting rankings

View attachment 65379

The recruiting rankings are interesting. At a very high level, the rankings are an indicator of talent. But they only go so far. Other pieces that are very important include how well the staff evaluates talent and how well that talent plays together (is the whole greater than or less than the sum of the parts?).


A few examples...

1) A recent article on 247sports broke down our roster looking at the average recruiting rankings by position. With Montgomery and Butler leaving, the average ranking of our WRs and RBs went up since neither were highly regarded out of HS… I am not saying that we have not gotten talented players at those spots in recent classes, but I believe it is clear now that both Butler and Montgomery were significantly under rated coming out of HS. If re-ranked now, there is no way they would be bringing down our average rankings.

2) Texas is a good example of either over rated recruits (not saying all are over rated) or great individual talent that never quite comes together as a team (or both). You see a lot of blue blood programs pulling in highly rated classes. Partly, talented players obviously are attracted to traditional powers, but partly because kids being recruited by those schools tend to get more exposure and rankings are absolutely impacted by exposure. Dekkers is a good individual example of exposure helping his ranking... Before the Elite 11, he is a low to mid 3 star, afterwards, he jumps to a 4 star. If he doesn't go to the Elite 11 camp, I doubt he gets the bump he did. But he was evaluated by the staff and committed to ISU before he got this exposure. Regardless, of whether or not he attends the camp, he is still the same player. Which leads to my last point..

3) The ability of the coaching staff to identify talent is very important. You are right, we probably won't get to the "0.88+" average level talent you see at some blue blood programs... So, it's important to find players like Montgomery, Butler, Lima, etc... 2 or 3 star guys that end up being 4+ star talent. The Athletic did a nice piece on this. While I didn't agree 100% with the methodology and they didn’t show details for individual players, it was the best re-ranking I have seen so far. They re-ranked the 2015 recruiting classes and shared the re-ranked Top 25. This was CMC last class at Toledo and in the re-ranking it came in at #12 in the nation (significant jump).

The bottom line is, I believe this staff is excellent at talent evaluation and the ability to find “culture” fits that will help them build teams that are greater than the sum of the parts. If he can get a Top 12 class at a MAC program what can he do at ISU? The class rankings on signing day may never reflect it, but CMC may already be bringing better classes than what we see on paper…

EDIT: BTW great work pulling all the numbers together - it is interesting to see how these teams have been trending.

 

[t-noah]

The recruiting rankings are interesting. At a very high level, the rankings are an indicator of talent. But they only go so far. Other pieces that are very important include how well the staff evaluates talent and how well that talent plays together (is the whole greater than or less than the sum of the parts?).


A few examples...

1) A recent article on 247sports broke down our roster looking at the average recruiting rankings by position. With Montgomery and Butler leaving, the average ranking of our WRs and RBs went up since neither were highly regarded out of HS… I am not saying that we have not gotten talented players at those spots in recent classes, but I believe it is clear now that both Butler and Montgomery were significantly under rated coming out of HS. If re-ranked now, there is no way they would be bringing down our average rankings.

2) Texas is a good example of either over rated recruits (not saying all are over rated) or great individual talent that never quite comes together as a team (or both). You see a lot of blue blood programs pulling in highly rated classes. Partly, talented players obviously are attracted to traditional powers, but partly because kids being recruited by those schools tend to get more exposure and rankings are absolutely impacted by exposure. Dekkers is a good individual example of exposure helping his ranking... Before the Elite 11, he is a low to mid 3 star, afterwards, he jumps to a 4 star. If he doesn't go to the Elite 11 camp, I doubt he gets the bump he did. But he was evaluated by the staff and committed to ISU before he got this exposure. Regardless, of whether or not he attends the camp, he is still the same player. Which leads to my last point..

3) The ability of the coaching staff to identify talent is very important. You are right, we probably won't get to the "0.88+" average level talent you see at some blue blood programs... So, it's important to find players like Montgomery, Butler, Lima, etc... 2 or 3 star guys that end up being 4+ star talent. The Athletic did a nice piece on this. While I didn't agree 100% with the methodology and they didn’t show details for individual players, it was the best re-ranking I have seen so far. They re-ranked the 2015 recruiting classes and shared the re-ranked Top 25. This was CMC last class at Toledo and in the re-ranking it came in at #12 in the nation (significant jump).

The bottom line is, I believe this staff is excellent at talent evaluation and the ability to find “culture” fits that will help them build teams that are greater than the sum of the parts. If he can get a Top 12 class at a MAC program what can he do at ISU? The class rankings on signing day may never reflect it, but CMC may already be bringing better classes than what we see on paper…

EDIT: BTW great work pulling all the numbers together - it is interesting to see how these teams have been trending.

Nicely done. Very logical. "Live long and prosper!"