Narduzzi Recruiting Perspective

[TarHeelNation11]

Yeah, but pretty much everyone has, at least, 2-3 players who were 3 stars or lower and were major contributors. We have Quadree Henderson and Brian O'Neil, who are better players and will be higher draft picks.

Okay so.... diamonds in the rough, no? The vast majority of prospects Rivals ranks are 3***s. Plenty don't ever start for their college team, much less become NFL draft picks.

Overall though, yes you have to get 4 and 5 star guys. On a macro level, 4s and 5s will be elite players for their college team. Sure, the individual 4**** here and there may be a bust, but there's lots of data that shows that there's a consistent correlation between being ranked as a 4*** or 5***** and going on to have an excellent college career.

 

[cbpitt2]

I did say that mattered to the intelligent kids. Dumb jocks don't go to play football at Stanford.

 

[Jpripper88]

I did say that mattered to the intelligent kids. Dumb jocks don't go to play football at Stanford.

Yea, but both Pitt and WVU are operating at the NCAA minimums for our athletes. That's why we are waiting on pins and needles for Paris Ford.

 

[joeydavid]

Just mentioning Ryan Switzer on a Pitt message board should result in an automatic banning of the poster.

#themardygilyardruleapplied

There's still plenty of diamonds in the rough. Look at these three UNC players that were drafted back in April:

- Mitch Trubisky, 3*** QB from Mentor, OH (1st Rd pick, #2 overall - Chicago). He was from tOSU's perennial hotbed of talent, the greater Cleveland area, and yet tOSU barely gave him a look until way too late in the process. UNC was the only school to consistently recruit him hard from early on and he stayed committed to the Heels.
- Ryan Switzer, 3*** TB from Charleston, WV (4th Rd pick, #133 overall - Dallas). Ryan was another 3*** who was very lightly recruited by his in-state school West Virginia. Fedora and staff were on him from the start and saw him as a slot receiver instead of a tailback. Set the UNC record for most-ever receptions and receiving yards. Also had 7 career punt returns for TDs (sorry!)
- Mack Hollins N/R walk-on WR from Rockville, Maryland (4th Rd pick, #118 overall - Philadelphia). Hollins was a walk-on and ended up being one of the best receivers and special teams players in UNC history as well as becoming team captain. He is poised to potentially win a starting job with the Eagles this fall as a rookie.

So the diamonds in the rough are still out there a-plenty, even with all the modern technology of 2017.

 

[HailtoPitt]

That lump went 10-3 last year

With an AD who made him hire a real DC.

 

[vegasgreed]

Who knows, maybe Heather will do the same for us....

In all seriousness, either you did or you did not. Coaching is a bottom line business. The rest is excuses.

Wisconsin hired Aranda. He left. They hired Wilcox and he left. They got better gigs cause they were winning. Sounds to me like Wisconsin is actually trying to win football games.

PSU won the Big last year. WVU won 10 games last year. Meanwhile the Pitt admin/BOT is executing their plan....

With an AD who made him hire a real DC.

 

[Pizzaboy1]

How do you think WVU feels about not getting Switzer to Morgantown?When WVU loses a Dl recruit from WVa it really hurts!

 

[TD_istheman]

I could care less about Hoopie U, but to make excuses constantly for Duzz recruiting , just shows you its more about the recruiter than anything else. If you took that idiot at PSU and put him at Pitt , he would produce top 25 to 20 classes, just an opinion.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I could care less about Hoopie U, but to make excuses constantly for Duzz recruiting , just shows you its more about the recruiter than anything else. If you took that idiot at PSU and put him at Pitt , he would produce top 25 to 20 classes, just an opinion.

Did James at State College produce top 20-25 classes at Vandy? Just asking, I don't know. That answer to that would be relevant to validating, or not validating, your conclusion whether he would do so if at Pitt vs State College.

 

[joeydavid]

Last I checked Pedophilia State had a much higher recruiting "advantage" over Pitt but that gap wasn't evident on field. Even shorthanded at their vile place- that "advantage" won't be evident.

I could care less about Hoopie U, but to make excuses constantly for Duzz recruiting , just shows you its more about the recruiter than anything else. If you took that idiot at PSU and put him at Pitt , he would produce top 25 to 20 classes, just an opinion.

 

[Pitt0912]

Yes. His second year they had the 19th overall class.

Did James at State College produce top 20-25 classes at Vandy? Just asking, I don't know. That answer to that would be relevant to validating, or not validating, your conclusion whether he would do so if at Pitt vs State College.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Do you know there are like 5 NON POWER 5 SCHOOLS OUT RECRUITING US????????

This is irrelevant when you are at such a low number of commits and it is August. Most of what you are seeing is based on the low number of recruits. Average stars is pretty much Pitt normal for our better classes over the past 15 years--at an average of 3.00 stars per recruit. Do the math yourself and go by average stars per player or average numerical rating per player and get rid of the quantity bias and you will see it's even now not anywhere close to being as awful as you perceive it to be.

I would be concerned if we were at our expected ~20 recruits on LOI day and (based either on average stars or average rating number per player--which takes class size completely out of the calculation as is the scientifically correct thing to do) we still had an average value per recruit well below our peers with one of the weaker Walt Harris era classes that averaged 2.5 stars, or the like.

I am absolutely certain our final class will average at or above 3 stars per recruit. So don't fret, it is a waste of energy.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

This is irrelevant when you are at such a low number of commits and it is August. Most of what you are seeing is based on the low number of recruits. Average stars is pretty much Pitt normal for our better classes over the past 15 years--at an average of 3.00 stars per recruit. Do the math yourself and go by average stars per player or average numerical rating per player and get rid of the quantity bias and you will see it's even now not anywhere close to being as awful as you perceive it to be.

I would be concerned if we were at our expected ~20 recruits on LOI day and (based either on average stars or average rating number per player--which takes class size completely out of the calculation as is the scientifically correct thing to do) we still had an average value per recruit well below our peers with one of the weaker Walt Harris era classes that averaged 2.5 stars, or the like.

I am absolutely certain our final class will average at or above 3 stars per recruit. So don't fret, it is a waste of energy.

One further note--

Pitt's 2016 and 2017 classes finished on LOI day at #5 in the ACC based on average stars per/recruit.

It appears to me that this year's class will wind up in just about that same place on LOI day with the 2018 class as it did with the 2016 and 2017 classes.

This will be because, IMO, at least one of our 2 current 2-stars will be up-rated to a 3 by then and we will probably also have one of our 3-stars become a 4-star Then to complete a class of 20 we will likely land 1-2 4-star commits and 6-7 3-stars (to add to our current 10 3-stars) by LOI day---this projection is fully consistent with our recent normal recruiting pattern.

 

[TD_istheman]

Our class went be close to 5th overall in the ACC, AND if it was, what does that get us , honestly , 7-5, 8-4, yippy

 

[TD_istheman]

We are going to finish about 9th in the conference , so hope Duzz feels great about winning the ACC with that , because HE SAID SO HIMSELF

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

We are going to finish about 9th in the conference , so hope Duzz feels great about winning the ACC with that , because HE SAID SO HIMSELF

Thank you for the pessimism. Enjoy the rest of your day making yourself miserable.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Thank you for the pessimism. Enjoy the rest of your day making yourself miserable.

Will be about same number of average stars/player (between about 3.00 and 3.20) as the 2016 and 2017 classes--which was the same for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 classes (right about 3 stars/player on average). That will again probably be about #5 in average stars in the ACC. It could be #9 in the point rating because the class wont have 25 in it (we don't have room). Again, the ratings are skewed because counting the number of recruits is scientifically bogus since it rewards quantity in a system that doesn't allow you to recruit 25 every year due to the 85 team cap (Example is Pitt's 2013 class rated #35 nationally due to having 27 in it--still averaged at 3.00 stars/recruit).

 

[RaleighPittFan]

We are going to finish about 9th in the conference , so hope Duzz feels great about winning the ACC with that , because HE SAID SO HIMSELF

Pitt won't even need to play the games. You have it all figured out in advance.

So, I'm guessing Pitt didn't need to play Clemson last season, right?

I'll bet you get invited to a lot of party's, and have a full social life.

 

[TD_istheman]

As long as Duzz knows the expectations are to win the ACC, as he says they sre, and he feels he can win it with this class , then I have to believe like him. But I will say , once the biggest die hard you will find , I have bevame apathetic the past 5 years.

 

[TD_istheman]

Just like I am with the Pirates as well , both run their companies the same.

 

[DiehardPanther]

Just like I am with the Pirates as well , both run their companies the same.

The University of Pittsburgh is not a company you jabrone. Their name is not the Football Academy of Pittsburgh.

 

[cashisking884]

One further note--

Pitt's 2016 and 2017 classes finished on LOI day at #5 in the ACC based on average stars per/recruit.

It appears to me that this year's class will wind up in just about that same place on LOI day with the 2018 class as it did with the 2016 and 2017 classes.

This will be because, IMO, at least one of our 2 current 2-stars will be up-rated to a 3 by then and we will probably also have one of our 3-stars become a 4-star Then to complete a class of 20 we will likely land 1-2 4-star commits and 6-7 3-stars (to add to our current 10 3-stars) by LOI day---this projection is fully consistent with our recent normal recruiting pattern.

But to some extent shouldn't a smaller class have a higher average star ranking?
It would be fairly easy to have a class average star ranking at an almost perfect number. Just take one commit and have that commit be a 5 star. Your average star ranking will be almost perfect.
The further you move away from 1 commit, the more difficult it is to maintain a high star average. The closer you stay to 1 commit, the higher your star average should be.
Clemson is a perfect example of that. The last few years they have taken very small classes, which has allowed them to have very high star ranking. Nebraska is currently having one of their highest star ranking classes in a very long time, precisely because they are taking a very small class.
Stanford's 2017 recruiting class had one of its highest star averages ever because it was so small.
When your small class has the same average star ranking a large "filler" class has, that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[TD_istheman]

The University of Pittsburgh is not a company you jabrone. Their name is not the Football Academy of Pittsburgh.

Snowflake, you don't think BIG BOY FOOTBALL is a business???? Please tell me you don't go to Pitt , or at least not in the business dept.!

 

[TD_istheman]

Wow, no wonder we settle , mindset is defeated. Duzz actually deserves better if this is our clientele.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

But to some extent shouldn't a smaller class have a higher average star ranking?
It would be fairly easy to have a class average star ranking at an almost perfect number. Just take one commit and have that commit be a 5 star. Your average star ranking will be almost perfect.
The further you move away from 1 commit, the more difficult it is to maintain a high star average. The closer you stay to 1 commit, the higher your star average should be.
Clemson is a perfect example of that. The last few years they have taken very small classes, which has allowed them to have very high star ranking. Nebraska is currently having one of their highest star ranking classes in a very long time, precisely because they are taking a very small class.
Stanford's 2017 recruiting class had one of its highest star averages ever because it was so small.
When your small class has the same average star ranking a large "filler" class has, that's not necessarily a good thing.

I understand where you are coming from but it doesn't have much validity, IMHO. Looking at Pitt from 2013 through 2017 all classes regardless of size have had an average star rating virtually the same regardless of class size. I believe if you research the data on Rivals for other teams it will almost always show the same or similar.

 

[cashisking884]

I understand where you are coming from but it doesn't have much validity, IMHO. Looking at Pitt from 2013 through 2017 all classes regardless of size have had an average star rating virtually the same regardless of class size. I believe if you research the data on Rivals for other teams it will almost always show the same or similar.

But that begs the question, it doesn't answer it.
The issue here isn't, "Was Pitt's recruiting good enough between 2013 and 2017?", because most would probably say no it wasn't relative to the level most want to achieve. So the fact that recruiting didn't change much is indicative of a lack of 4 star recruits.
This would probably be the reason why it's like that for many other teams as well. Most teams don't recruit good enough to compete for much of anything. This is why the same few teams are dominating college football every year.
I would agree that within teams that don't have top heavy recruiting classes, the average star ranking doesn't change much. When you remove the filler on the backend, you just have more filler on the front end. But when you look at teams capable of getting a decent amount of front end, impact recruits, small classes often do impact the class average. Another example is USC in like 2012 or 2013 when they had one of the highest average star rankings ever for a recruiting class, but it's because they only took like 10 players.
Because those front end recruits account for a larger % of the class average compared to a normal year. If that isn't the case, it's because: 1. You're currently Ohio State or Alabama and there is no filler anywhere in your class, or 2. You aren't getting enough 4 star commits for class size to impact class average. It's all 3 stars across the boards, so whether you take 15 or 25, the average doesn't change.
The latter case is the issue that many are worried about. Current recruiting is nothing but middle of the road 3 stars. So the class average isn't impacted by the class size, because how could it be?

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

But that begs the question, it doesn't answer it.
The issue here isn't, "Was Pitt's recruiting good enough between 2013 and 2017?", because most would probably say no it wasn't relative to the level most want to achieve. So the fact that recruiting didn't change much is indicative of a lack of 4 star recruits.
This would probably be the reason why it's like that for many other teams as well. Most teams don't recruit good enough to compete for much of anything. This is why the same few teams are dominating college football every year.
I would agree that within teams that don't have top heavy recruiting classes, the average star ranking doesn't change much. When you remove the filler on the backend, you just have more filler on the front end. But when you look at teams capable of getting a decent amount of front end, impact recruits, small classes often do impact the class average. Another example is USC in like 2012 or 2013 when they had one of the highest average star rankings ever for a recruiting class, but it's because they only took like 10 players.
Because those front end recruits account for a larger % of the class average compared to a normal year. If that isn't the case, it's because: 1. You're currently Ohio State or Alabama and there is no filler anywhere in your class, or 2. You aren't getting enough 4 star commits for class size to impact class average. It's all 3 stars across the boards, so whether you take 15 or 25, the average doesn't change.
The latter case is the issue that many are worried about. Current recruiting is nothing but middle of the road 3 stars. So the class average isn't impacted by the class size, because how could it be?

I hope I wasn't trying to imply that Pitt recruiting was or was not satisfactory for its objectives (or its fans objectives). It wasn't my intention at all. What I was trying to address was the generic to all teams issue that if you only have 15 recruits, for example, in a given class, or 12, or 13, or 17 or 19 or 22 for that matter because you have bumped up against the NCAA's 85 total scholarship limit that it makes no sense to say you had a weaker class than a team that in its 4-year cycle is not up against the 85 limit and takes a class of 25 with an average star rating the same or quite often lower than yours.

I guess ultimately, I would be advocating for evaluating a teams recruiting success level by taking a 4 or 5 year rolling average star value and seeing where that puts them in the hierarchy of programs vs the 4 or 5 year rolling average of all those other programs.

As an exercise, I took a less than ideal shortcut way of doing that for Pitt for 2013 through 2017 (5 classes) and looked at where the star average with an average class size of 21 ( 4 x 21 = 84; or almost 85) would put them in the rankings for any single year. No surprise, it yields a class equivalent to one typically ranked somewhere in the mid-30s. So, we appear to have been recruiting to be around the #35 team nationally; assuming, of course, that (1) we don't take credit for the several 4 or 5 star transfers in and (2) all P5 coaches are of equal competency, including our own in coaching up the team in practice and in games. If we take credit for (1) we would probably be closer to having an average #30'class represented by our roster.

Isn't the latter about where the pollster think we are preseason--around #30?

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

But that begs the question, it doesn't answer it.
The issue here isn't, "Was Pitt's recruiting good enough between 2013 and 2017?", because most would probably say no it wasn't relative to the level most want to achieve. So the fact that recruiting didn't change much is indicative of a lack of 4 star recruits.
This would probably be the reason why it's like that for many other teams as well. Most teams don't recruit good enough to compete for much of anything. This is why the same few teams are dominating college football every year.
I would agree that within teams that don't have top heavy recruiting classes, the average star ranking doesn't change much. When you remove the filler on the backend, you just have more filler on the front end. But when you look at teams capable of getting a decent amount of front end, impact recruits, small classes often do impact the class average. Another example is USC in like 2012 or 2013 when they had one of the highest average star rankings ever for a recruiting class, but it's because they only took like 10 players.
Because those front end recruits account for a larger % of the class average compared to a normal year. If that isn't the case, it's because: 1. You're currently Ohio State or Alabama and there is no filler anywhere in your class, or 2. You aren't getting enough 4 star commits for class size to impact class average. It's all 3 stars across the boards, so whether you take 15 or 25, the average doesn't change.
The latter case is the issue that many are worried about. Current recruiting is nothing but middle of the road 3 stars. So the class average isn't impacted by the class size, because how could it be?

Addressing another point you made--teams aren't ranked by rivals based solely on average stars. Rather, a numerical value is assigned that is heavily influenced by class size so if you average 3 stars with 15 recruits in the class (bumped against the 85 rule and weren't allowed more numbers) you will be rated lower than if you weren't up against the 85 rule and took 25. Same would apply if you averaged 5 stars with 15 vs 5-stars with 25. In other words your class quality is the same but you are rated lower than a school with the same quality that didn't bump up against the 85 limit in this same year. So, your overall recruiting rank doesn't meaningfully reflect your recruit class position in any year you are constrained by the 85 rule. So, again using a 4 or maybe 5 year rolling average is the best way to assess how your team is doing in the recruiting wars. Secondarily, just ranking by average stars in a given year gives a better picture than the numerical system that penalizes when you bump up against the 85 and that causes you to have a smallish class.

Another way to reduce the class size bias would be to divide the numerical scores by the number in the class and multiply by 25. Then compare everyone on where they would be if there were 25 in everyone's class.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I hope I wasn't trying to imply that Pitt recruiting was or was not satisfactory for its objectives (or its fans objectives). It wasn't my intention at all. What I was trying to address was the generic to all teams issue that if you only have 15 recruits, for example, in a given class, or 12, or 13, or 17 or 19 or 22 for that matter because you have bumped up against the NCAA's 85 total scholarship limit that it makes no sense to say you had a weaker class than a team that in its 4-year cycle is not up against the 85 limit and takes a class of 25 with an average star rating the same or quite often lower than yours.

I guess ultimately, I would be advocating for evaluating a teams recruiting success level by taking a 4 or 5 year rolling average star value and seeing where that puts them in the hierarchy of programs vs the 4 or 5 year rolling average of all those other programs.

As an exercise, I took a less than ideal shortcut way of doing that for Pitt for 2013 through 2017 (5 classes) and looked at where the star average with an average class size of 21 ( 4 x 21 = 84; or almost 85) would put them in the rankings for any single year. No surprise, it yields a class equivalent to one typically ranked somewhere in the mid-30s. So, we appear to have been recruiting to be around the #35 team nationally; assuming, of course, that (1) we don't take credit for the several 4 or 5 star transfers in and (2) all P5 coaches are of equal competency, including our own in coaching up the team in practice and in games. If we take credit for (1) we would probably be closer to having an average #30'class represented by our roster.

Isn't the latter about where the pollster think we are preseason--around #30?

Instead of averaging around the #35 class our 2013 through 2017 classes were rated respectively, 35, 44, 65, 29 and 38. The average of these is 42 and the crazily low #65 class was when we only had room for 15. But the quality in terms of average stars/player is virtually the same throughout all five classes. The aberration is all an artifact of a too heavy influence of class size in the rating system.

 

[jason21psu]

Instead of averaging around the #35 class our 2013 through 2017 classes were rated respectively, 35, 44, 65, 29 and 38. The average of these is 42 and the crazily low #65 class was when we only had room for 15. But the quality in terms of average stars/player is virtually the same throughout all five classes. The aberration is all an artifact of a too heavy influence of class size in the rating system.

I think 247's composite algorithm is best and it definitely does a better job of smoothing out the highs and lows due to class size. For comparison here is same time frame:
Yr - Rk - points - avg
2013 - 32 196.04 84.11
2014 - 44 187.66 84.13
2015 - 46 183.18 85.98
2016 - 30 209.23 85.63
2017 - 37 202.12 84.94

2015 was your highest average but with only 15 commits it was your lowest ranking but not nearly as low as other services.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I think 247's composite algorithm is best and it definitely does a better job of smoothing out the highs and lows due to class size. For comparison here is same time frame:
Yr - Rk - points - avg
2013 - 32 196.04 84.11
2014 - 44 187.66 84.13
2015 - 46 183.18 85.98
2016 - 30 209.23 85.63
2017 - 37 202.12 84.94

2015 was your highest average but with only 15 commits it was your lowest ranking but not nearly as low as other services.

Yes, that does appear better and averages a #38 class vs a #42 class. An average #38 class may still be a bit high but #42 is clearly too high. I think the reality is we recruited, on average, closer to #35 than to #38 for that 5-year stretch; but, yeah, you are right, the 247 thing is more realistic than what Rivals produces, IMO.

 

[cashisking884]

I guess ultimately, I would be advocating for evaluating a teams recruiting success level by taking a 4 or 5 year rolling average star value and seeing where that puts them in the hierarchy of programs vs the 4 or 5 year rolling average of all those other programs.

And that's fine. I agree. Your 4 year average needs to be a certain "tier" level.
We are just disagree on what should be that "tier" for Pitt to have success, or maybe just disagree on whether a lack of average star ranking bump in a small class is indicative of not being in that tier. I think there is an argument that it is.
If Pitt was bringing in the amount of 4 stars per class needed to be in that minimum recruiting tier, I think you would see an average star ranking bump, because the core of 4 stars would account for a greater % of the class. The fact that there is no average star ranking bump, is due to the fact that Pitt's classes under Duzzi have not, and continue to not have, a 4 star core that the class is built around. And that's not good.

 

[TD_istheman]

And that's fine. I agree. Your 4 year average needs to be a certain "tier" level.
We are just disagree on what should be that "tier" for Pitt to have success, or maybe just disagree on whether a lack of average star ranking bump in a small class is indicative of not being in that tier. I think there is an argument that it is.
If Pitt was bringing in the amount of 4 stars per class needed to be in that minimum recruiting tier, I think you would see an average star ranking bump, because the core of 4 stars would account for a greater % of the class. The fact that there is no average star ranking bump, is due to the fact that Pitt's classes under Duzzi have not, and continue to not have, a 4 star core that the class is built around. And that's not good.

There is nothing wrong with being honest about it either

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

There is nothing wrong with being honest about it either

I have no problem with your response and I would like to see us landing more 4 stars and an occasional 5 star.

But, realistically speaking, we haven't done appreciably better than we are now except once or twice under Wannstadt and that was fueled by local 4 and 5 stars. Unfortunately, the numbers of local 4-5 stars have been becoming fewer as the years go by. The WPIAL isn't what it once was--at least in the eyes of those who assign the stars.

I am not even sure it is possible to recruit any better to Pitt unless we have a good luck breakout year and win 11 or more games to get the attention of higher rated recruits that are not local.

 

[jason21psu]

Yes, that does appear better and averages a #38 class vs a #42 class. An average #38 class may still be a bit high but #42 is clearly too high. I think the reality is we recruited, on average, closer to #35 than to #38 for that 5-year stretch; but, yeah, you are right, the 247 thing is more realistic than what Rivals produces, IMO.

Here's another metric to consider, the Blue Chip ratio. Its a rolling 4 year window that looking at the percentage of blue chips (4 and 5 star) recruited. If your 20 person class has 5 blue chips then your ratio is 5/20 or 25%. Do that for 4 years and you have your total ratio. I think it would be more accurate if they looked at current blue chips on roster but that would take a lot more time to analyze.

 

[Cathedral Lawn Frisbee]

duh

Here's another metric to consider, the Blue Chip ratio. Its a rolling 4 year window that looking at the percentage of blue chips (4 and 5 star) recruited. If your 20 person class has 5 blue chips then your ratio is 5/20 or 25%. Do that for 4 years and you have your total ratio. I think it would be more accurate if they looked at current blue chips on roster but that would take a lot more time to analyze.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

I agree, but where do you put the stadium...

Where do you get the money ?