Recruiting rankings thread

#876
#876
Carlitovol said:
I would hope to see us move up due to the fact that Rivals bases their rankings ONLY on the 20 highest ranked players for each class. So assuming that we sign a minimum of 20, we'll be on an even playing field with everyone else.

Side note - one concern I have is that we currently have two 5.5 3*s and one 5.6 3* committed. IMO we need to be more selective because of the smaller class size. I know you can't look solely at stars, but bottom line is that we need to maximize the caliber of players we bring in for 2016 because of the lower numbers.

So you just described yourself as a stargazer. I have no problem with these 3 stars because Butch and company have proved that they are great at evaluating underrated talent. Like Cameron Sutton, Emmanuel Mosely, and etc.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#877
#877
I could care less about the stars I look more at the offers a kid has. Most that are three star guys have multiple offers from power house programs. This is a better indication of whether a recruit will be successful or not. Make no mistake this staff will have a good class with a high average star rating if that's important to people but we're unlikely to finish super high in the rankings because it's going to be our class of 18 kids versus everyone else's best 20 out of how ever many they take. We simply don't have the luxury of space this year to have a top ten class IMO. That said Butch always surprises me so I look forward to eating my words on NSD.
 
#878
#878
SouthKnoxVOL said:
Carlitovol said:
I would hope to see us move up due to the fact that Rivals bases their rankings ONLY on the 20 highest ranked players for each class. So assuming that we sign a minimum of 20, we'll be on an even playing field with everyone else.

Side note - one concern I have is that we currently have two 5.5 3*s and one 5.6 3* committed. IMO we need to be more selective because of the smaller class size. I know you can't look solely at stars, but bottom line is that we need to maximize the caliber of players we bring in for 2016 because of the lower numbers.

So you just described yourself as a stargazer. I have no problem with these 3 stars because Butch and company have proved that they are great at evaluating underrated talent. Like Cameron Sutton, Emmanuel Mosely, and etc.
Click to expand...

I think everybody is a star gazer to some degree or another.. Otherwise, why would we get excited about a a 5* commitment?

I see your point, though. And I do trust Butch's evaluation capabilities. My point is that you can afford to take some lower-ranked guys if you have a large class (i.e. 33 in 2014).. In other words, a little more room for error..

I think we would all agree that there are some 2* diamonds in the rough; however, your average consensus low 3* or 2* will likely not make as much of an impact as your average 4*.. It's all about probabilities.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#880
#880
We are tied for 9th when you look at the rankings based on star avg. In other words, teams that already have 18 or 19 commits are only ahead of us based on quantity, not quality (i.e. Florida).

But Fils-Aime will be bumped to 5.9 4* by NSD. Mark it down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#881
#881
VolDango said:
We are tied for 9th when you look at the rankings based on star avg. In other words, teams that already have 18 or 19 commits are only ahead of us based on quantity, not quality (i.e. Florida).

But Fils-Aime will be bumped to 5.9 4* by NSD. Mark it down.
Click to expand...

leonardo-gif1.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#882
#882
General Jack said:
Doug Mathews thinks that things will be very fluid this year and we will end up with a handful of very highly ranked players because we can afford to be choosy this year.

So don't count us out of the top 10 yet.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see that. Pretty much why I am not too excited with our cuurent commitment list.
 
#883
#883
Personally I am not so concerned about quantity or raking on signing day as much as if the kids pan out for us. Some players will ball out no matter where they go to college, but some kids do better in certain schemes. If a kid is lower ranked but meets our needs better, such as Cam and EMoe then so be it, let's take whoever is the best suited to our O or D schemes.

That said it is still nice to have a highly rated class for bragging rights.
 
#884
#884
SouthKnoxVOL said:
Carlitovol said:
I would hope to see us move up due to the fact that Rivals bases their rankings ONLY on the 20 highest ranked players for each class. So assuming that we sign a minimum of 20, we'll be on an even playing field with everyone else.

Side note - one concern I have is that we currently have two 5.5 3*s and one 5.6 3* committed. IMO we need to be more selective because of the smaller class size. I know you can't look solely at stars, but bottom line is that we need to maximize the caliber of players we bring in for 2016 because of the lower numbers.

So you just described yourself as a stargazer. I have no problem with these 3 stars because Butch and company have proved that they are great at evaluating underrated talent. Like Cameron Sutton, Emmanuel Mosely, and etc.
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop giving Butch credit for finding and evaluating Cam. He committed to Dooley guys. Yes Butch had to hang on to him at the end but he did not find him
Click to expand...
 
#885
#885
I don't know why you guys give Dooley credit for Sutton. I found Cam Sutton.

Also, this class will be top 10 after we win 10.
 
#887
#887
LittleVol said:
GoBigOrange_2309 said:
Cam didn't play a down under Dooley. Cam is a product of what Butch preaches.
Click to expand...


And Dooley only went after Cam, BECAUSE he was a three star. He knew he wouldn't have to fight too hard for him. Butch Jones worked to keep Cam because he knew he had talent.

Sorry folks, the only thing I give Dooley credit for is being a worthless head coach and almost bringing ruin to Tennessee Football.

If the man never steps foot in the State I love again, it will be too soon.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#891
#891
I mean technically UT only had 1 consensus 5* last year. A class with one or two 5*s, and a large amount of 4*s with a 88-90 average would still be top 15 easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#892
#892
DaddyChad said:
We're signing 18 kids so top ten finish is unlikely but possible
Click to expand...

So I read we can now sign 21. Also I thought Rivals rankings were based on the top 20 commits ? So there is no reason we shouldn't be Top 10. Unless we take Lower rated commits at positions of need which would be counter-intuitive ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#894
#894
Rock33 said:
So I read we can now sign 21. Also I thought Rivals rankings were based on the top 20 commits ? So there is no reason we shouldn't be Top 10. Unless we take Lower rated commits at positions of need which would be counter-intuitive ?
Click to expand...

Don't get wrapped up in this. We are digesting nearly 60 recruits in 2 years and being more strategic this year in prep for a big 17.
 
#896
#896
Not really concerned with our final "ranking" based on some site's criteria. If the player evaluations average out near correct, then "avg quality of signees according to need" is actually more important. Here's hoping we land several big fish down at the close, Fulmer style.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top