Ranked 61 nationally

[B1GEast]

Big improvement from last year

 

[noeynox]

According to who?

 

[rich1122]

Here, but be careful because the site may not open. You have to try a few times.

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&view=2&yr=2013

Click on Big East

 

[cheech63]

Big improvement from last year

I wouldn't jump up and down about moving up 5 spots,but I guess it's better than going down 5 spots.Baby steps.

 

[huskymedic]

I wouldn't jump up and down about moving up 5 spots,but I guess it's better than going down 5 spots.Baby steps.

... and BC is #81

 

[B1GEast]

I wouldn't jump up and down about moving up 5 spots,but I guess it's better than going down 5 spots.Baby steps.

In case you don't understand, we just went 5-7, our conference is in the crapper and we have been winning recruiting battles against some major programs. No. We should all be dancing right now.

 

[mcs333]

Houston 58, SMU 64.

 

[Adios]

In case you don't understand, we just went 5-7, our conference is in the crapper and we have been winning recruiting battles against some major programs. No. We should all be dancing right now.

Obviously, recruits perceive the conference better than most of us do.

 

[cheech63]

In case you don't understand, we just went 5-7, our conference is in the crapper and we have been winning recruiting battles against some major programs. No. We should all be dancing right now.

slow dancing

 

[huskysupporter]

Can care less what the ranking is. Tell me how it is in 5 years.

 

[B1GEast]

Obviously, recruits perceive the conference better than most of us do.

I think that most recruits are told that expansion is far form over, I think we'll be in a new conference, but that perception can trump reality, this recent success should be celebrated.

 

[huskymedic]

Can care less what the ranking is. Tell me how it is in 5 years.

Don't disagree @ all but how many years did we get whacked around for piss poor recruiting classes. On February 7th - the rankings from 5 years ago don't come out, talking heads will be looking @ this year and it's a perception thingy.

 

[huskysupporter]

Don't disagree @ all but how many years did we get whacked around for piss poor recruiting classes. On February 7th - the rankings from 5 years ago don't come out, talking heads will be looking @ this year and it's a perception thingy.

I hear you on the perception thing, but as a fan, I honestly don't care about it. Every year we heard about how putrid our recruiting was and we won two BE titles. And we all know all of the 2 star players we got that are playing on Sundays now.

 

[Durks07]

... and BC is #81

Who isn't happy to see that?

 

[B1GEast]

I hear you on the perception thing, but as a fan, I honestly don't care about it. Every year we heard about how putrid our recruiting was and we won two BE titles. And we all know all of the 2 star players we got that are playing on Sundays now.

Husky, would you rather have 10 two star recruits or 10 four star recruits? It does matter, we need to win battles against top programs, it shows that kids want to come here, to get a good degree and a shot to play on sundays. If you want to live on winning under the radar types, some of those kids may not pan out over time.

 

[Adios]

I think that most recruits are told that expansion is far form over, I think we'll be in a new conference, but that perception can trump reality, this recent success should be celebrated.

Temple has 1 less 3-star recruit than we do.

 

[BlueMAB]

Husky, would you rather have 10 two star recruits or 10 four star recruits? It does matter, we need to win battles against top programs, it shows that kids want to come here, to get a good degree and a shot to play on sundays. If you want to live on winning under the radar types, some of those kids may not pan out over time.

that's a false choice. we'd all rather have 10 four star recruits, but we're getting all 2 and 3 star recruits. based on the other offers, i agree recruiting is improving, but the overall class ranking, IMO, is meaningless, it's heavily weighted by the name on the front of the jersey.

 

[B1GEast]

that's a false choice. we'd all rather have 10 four star recruits, but we're getting all 2 and 3 star recruits. based on the other offers, i agree recruiting is improving, but the overall class ranking, IMO, is meaningless, it's heavily weighted by the name on the front of the jersey.

Somewhere down the line there must be a positive correlation between class rank and success on the field.

 

[Palatine]

The ranking don't mean jack.

 

[huskymedic]

The ranking don't mean jack.

Tell that to the Recruiting Coordinators/Coaches that get bonuses for them

"Locksley's four-year deal, which began on Dec. 28, has two recruiting-related bonuses. If the Terps finish in the Top 40 of Rivals.com or Scout.com's recruiting rankings on Signing Day, Locksley will get $25,000. If Maryland is among the top four Atlantic Coast Conference teams in Rivals or Scout's team rankings on Signing Day, Locksley will receive $20,000."

 

[sportsart]

Coaches will show recruits the rankings to try and impress them and show them the "company" they can keep.

 

[Woof 101]

Temple has 1 less 3-star recruit than we do.

Closet Temple fan? They beat us last year, you would think they would be way ahead.....

 

[B1GEast]

The ranking don't mean jack.

It's impossible to quantify the value of a class in numbers. A 43rd ranked team, might actually produce better athletes than a 29th ranked team. There are too many variables that determine unpredictable outcomes.

What matters to me is that a northeastern guy like Lemelle picked Uconn over Iowa and a slew of other big names that offered. If that makes him a 2 or 3, is irrelevant. He picked uconn. That being said, again, I'd rather have 10 four star recruits than 10 star recruits, I like the probabilities.

 

[BlueMAB]

Somewhere down the line there must be a positive correlation between class rank and success on the field.

Sure there is. If you're compare 1-30 to 75-120, I'm sure you'll find a very strong correlation.

However, when you compare #40 to #60, I think that talent gap shrinks considerably, and solid talent development and coaching can make up for a difference in talent. The closer you get to the middle of the pack teams (61 is firmly in the middle) the smaller the talent gap. The difference between #95 and #115 is so insignificant they are hardly worth ranking at that point.

It's the same with players. If 2,000 players are eligible and seen on tape, but only 1,000 are going to get invited to camps and get scholarships. Picking the top 100 of 2,000 is much easier than picking numbers 900-1,000 out of 2,000. By the time you get to 900-1,000 those players are so evenly matched that coaching and intangibles like heart, desire, and chemistry are going to play larger roles. Well when you're ranking teams 80-120, you're looking at that bottom group of players and ranking them. Pretty much a waste of time, IMO.

This is all pure speculation and opinion based on experience, I can't prove any of it, so don't take my difference of opinion as something it's not.

 

[B1GEast]

Sure there is. If you're compare 1-30 to 75-120, I'm sure you'll find a very strong correlation.

However, when you compare #40 to #60, I think that talent gap shrinks considerably, and solid talent development and coaching can make up for a difference in talent. The closer you get to the middle of the pack teams (61 is firmly in the middle) the smaller the talent gap. The difference between #95 and #115 is so insignificant they are hardly worth ranking at that point.

It's the same with players. If 2,000 players are eligible and seen on tape, but only 1,000 are going to get invited to camps and get scholarships. Picking the top 100 of 2,000 is much easier than picking numbers 900-1,000 out of 2,000. By the time you get to 900-1,000 those players are so evenly matched that coaching and intangibles like heart, desire, and chemistry are going to play larger roles. Well when you're ranking teams 80-120, you're looking at that bottom group of players and ranking them. Pretty much a waste of time, IMO.

This is all pure speculation and opinion based on experience, I can't prove any of it, so don't take my difference of opinion as something it's not.

You're correct, too many variables, coaching, desire, football acumen, raw talent.