Ranking by Offers

[joeydavid]

Ranking by Offers supports the opinion that Pitt's class probably was slightly undervalued due having a bunch of kids just below the star cutoff. #33 on a 20 person class.

http://www.rankbyoffers.com/2018fbteams/

 

[steelhead52]

Ranking by Offers supports the opinion that Pitt's class probably was slightly undervalued due having a bunch of kids just below the star cutoff. #33 on a 20 person class.

http://www.rankbyoffers.com/2018fbteams/

Interesting, and probably supports what you are saying. On the other hand in their player rankings by offers they have a guy like Micah Parsons ranked at 155 so once again the argument comes up as to whether offers are committable or not. I find it hard to believe most coaches would take 154 players ahead of him for example.

 

[cashisking884]

Offer list would be great if there was an objective criteria for what constitutes an "offer." Alabama is notorious for their initial "offer" really only meaning you can come down and camp with us and actually earn an offer.
It would also help if we knew every kid was reporting all their offers. To me it seems like a self-selecting pool. As the value of another offer diminishes, a kid is going to be less likely to tweet out, "blessed to receiver an offer from..." So you end up with the Micah Parsons example above. At some point Parsons probably just yawned.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Ranking by Offers supports the opinion that Pitt's class probably was slightly undervalued due having a bunch of kids just below the star cutoff. #33 on a 20 person class.

http://www.rankbyoffers.com/2018fbteams/

Aside from the more obvious question about commit-able offers it suffers the same problem as other ratings systems in giving a bonus for having more recruits in a class (up to a cutoff of the NCAA limit of 25).

On that basis Pitt is still #8 in the ACC overall.

A more positive observation is that Pitt is #26 in average ranking per individual recruit using this method.

Nevertheless, I believe that average ranking per recruit is a better way of assessing an individual recruiting class since the NCAA 25/85 rule is what drives the number of players in a class--anything more than 25 is the result of gray-shirting or back filling a prior class of under 25 with early enrollees using ships opened due to overall roster attrition (from the 85 number). No school is giving out fewer ships than they have available in any given year.

Bottom line, in reality the best way to mathematically judge (what is an inherently subjective system) a schools recruiting (while ignoring subsequent player performance on the field) would be to take an average of the average value per recruit recruited over say a 5-year period to allow for the effect of redshirting.

Hypothetical Example of a Hypothetical School (using average stars):

2018-- 20 recruits Avg stars/ recruit = 2.85 = 57.00 total stars
2017-- 23 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 3.25 = 74.75 total stars
2016--25 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 3.35 = 83.75 total stars
2015--25 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 3.05 = 76.25 total stars
2014--24 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 2.90 = 69,60 total stars

Total--117 recruits<-------------------------------> 361.35 Total Stars

361.35/117 = 3.09 average stars/recruit This is the number you would compare to other all other schools recruiting calculated by the same method.

This would provide a far better sense of how a school is recruiting than the present flawed methods which are only for fan entertainment anyway.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

Interesting, and probably supports what you are saying. On the other hand in their player rankings by offers they have a guy like Micah Parsons ranked at 155 so once again the argument comes up as to whether offers are committable or not. I find it hard to believe most coaches would take 154 players ahead of him for example.

Athlete without a position, basically a 5 star project. Time will tell.

 

[HOF Coach]

Aside from the more obvious question about commit-able offers it suffers the same problem as other ratings systems in giving a bonus for having more recruits in a class (up to a cutoff of the NCAA limit of 25).

On that basis Pitt is still #8 in the ACC overall.

A more positive observation is that Pitt is #26 in average ranking per individual recruit using this method.

Nevertheless, I believe that average ranking per recruit is a better way of assessing an individual recruiting class since the NCAA 25/85 rule is what drives the number of players in a class--anything more than 25 is the result of gray-shirting or back filling a prior class of under 25 with early enrollees using ships opened due to overall roster attrition (from the 85 number). No school is giving out fewer ships than they have available in any given year.

Bottom line, in reality the best way to mathematically judge (what is an inherently subjective system) a schools recruiting (while ignoring subsequent player performance on the field) would be to take an average of the average value per recruit recruited over say a 5-year period to allow for the effect of redshirting.

Hypothetical Example of a Hypothetical School (using average stars):

2018-- 20 recruits Avg stars/ recruit = 2.85 = 57.00 total stars
2017-- 23 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 3.25 = 74.75 total stars
2016--25 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 3.35 = 83.75 total stars
2015--25 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 3.05 = 76.25 total stars
2014--24 recruits Avg stars/recruit = 2.90 = 69,60 total stars

Total--117 recruits<-------------------------------> 361.35 Total Stars

361.35/117 = 3.09 average stars/recruit This is the number you would compare to other all other schools recruiting calculated by the same method.

This would provide a far better sense of how a school is recruiting than the present flawed methods which are only for fan entertainment anyway.

The first thing I did was to re-sort the team rankings by "Average" and learned that PITT ranks #26 when using that criteria. That supports, what many of us believe, that the 2018 class is underrated by the various recruiting websites.

Again, it should be kept in mind that this ranking by offers website or the subscription based recruiting websites are flawed one way or another.

 

[pafootballguy]

Athlete without a position, basically a 5 star project. Time will tell.

No position? Kid has everything to be an elite pass rush, he crushed at the Army AA practice.

 

[Teh Teh]

Offer list would be great if there was an objective criteria for what constitutes an "offer." Alabama is notorious for their initial "offer" really only meaning you can come down and camp with us and actually earn an offer.
It would also help if we knew every kid was reporting all their offers. To me it seems like a self-selecting pool. As the value of another offer diminishes, a kid is going to be less likely to tweet out, "blessed to receiver an offer from..." So you end up with the Micah Parsons example above. At some point Parsons probably just yawned.

Nitter stance ^^

 

[SempleFest06]

The lengths some people will go to justify this recruiting class really amazes me. Rank by offers is incredibly inaccurate because there is no way to track the offers beyond a teenagers twitter account. I like what we did in the trenches and this Kradel/Zubovic/Danielson is a nice trio we got from the Wpial but I would definitely put this class behind Duzz first 2. We need to find a way to start winning some recruiting battles for high end prospects against the powerhouse programs. The only way to do that is to win, and keep developing those relationships. Hopefully finally having some stability will start to pay dividends in player development (less roster turnover, more 4/5 year guys) and recruiting (develop those relationships with high school coaches).

 

[pittdan77]

The only "objective" way to judge recruiting is wins on the field. Objectively, nothing else matters.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

The only "objective" way to judge recruiting is wins on the field. Objectively, nothing else matters.

Amen!

Was just playing the recruiting ratings game. In reality, some 4-5 star HS players turn out to perform on the college field like 2-3 stars and some 2-3 star HS players turn out to play like 4-5 stars in college. The recruiting rankings just suggest the probability of how players should turn out. Players out of HS rated at 4-5 stars have a higher probability of playing like 4-5 stars than do 2-3-star HS players. But, because of the much larger pool of 2-3 stars, you probably get roughly the same total number of 2-3 stars winding up playing like 4-5 stars as you do from the much smaller pool of 4-5 star players. The 2-3 star group that winds up playing like 4-5 stars is made up of players who were either underrated coming out of HS or, more usually, developed in college both physically (as they got older and pumped iron) and skill wise from receiving better more in depth position coaching.

 

[President Stache]

Pitt's recruiting class was clearly good by Pitt's standards. It is not top 10 material, and we never did have that.

Certainly a good class though. Obviously we need more top end players. There was only one locally that was a difference maker offensively, and he went to Notre Dame years ago.

We will get more local recruits than we lose, like we always have, no matter who the coach is. The difference will be in the those recruits from far away that we can reel in. Unless the WPIAL has some fantastic years, we just cant depend on the 3 or 6 kids we get locally a year

 

[sherepower]

Pitt's recruiting class was clearly good by Pitt's standards. It is not top 10 material, and we never did have that.

Certainly a good class though. Obviously we need more top end players. There was only one locally that was a difference maker offensively, and he went to Notre Dame years ago.

We will get more local recruits than we lose, like we always have, no matter who the coach is. The difference will be in the those recruits from far away that we can reel in. Unless the WPIAL has some fantastic years, we just cant depend on the 3 or 6 kids we get locally a year

Ummm........ we had back to back top 5 recruiting classes under Gottfried. That’s just off the top of my head

 

[n1tlion]

Ranking by Offers supports the opinion that Pitt's class probably was slightly undervalued due having a bunch of kids just below the star cutoff. #33 on a 20 person class.

http://www.rankbyoffers.com/2018fbteams/

Interesting, and probably supports what you are saying. On the other hand in their player rankings by offers they have a guy like Micah Parsons ranked at 155 so once again the argument comes up as to whether offers are committable or not. I find it hard to believe most coaches would take 154 players ahead of him for example.

I come in peace...full disclosure as a "Nitter"...found this discussion and website very interesting...going to take the link to the Den...just wanted to point out as others have mentioned that while "offers" is a decent indicator of how good a kid might be at the college level it is highly subjective as it's self reported (schools cannot comment on who they offer until they have signed them) and also the kids that commit earlier in the process have many less offers but doesn't mean they aren't some of the best...take Justin Shorter for example...he is by all accounts the top 3 wide receiver recruit in the country but because he committed to PSU back in mid 2016 and shut his recruitment down completely he only has 16 reported offers and is ranked in the 450 range...a concensus 5* ranked between 4-500, shows you how limited looking at this is...

 

[joeydavid]

The methodology (including where their approach falls short) is listed on the site. As for the validation of offers, it's all the same pool and should equalize across all of the teams. For example- It's not like the Pitt recruits would be exaggerating their offers to a degree much different than UPS' recruits exaggerate. The point is all things being equal, "offers counted" should be a wash across the board.

There really isn't a great measurement for recruiting so a good rule of thumb is to take them all with a grain of salt.

I come in peace...full disclosure as a "Nitter"...found this discussion and website very interesting...going to take the link to the Den...just wanted to point out as others have mentioned that while "offers" is a decent indicator of how good a kid might be at the college level it is highly subjective as it's self reported (schools cannot comment on who they offer until they have signed them) and also the kids that commit earlier in the process have many less offers but doesn't mean they aren't some of the best...take Justin Shorter for example...he is by all accounts the top 3 wide receiver recruit in the country but because he committed to PSU back in mid 2016 and shut his recruitment down completely he only has 16 reported offers and is ranked in the 450 range...a concensus 5* ranked between 4-500, shows you how limited looking at this is...

 

[Pittski]

Ranking by Offers supports the opinion that Pitt's class probably was slightly undervalued due having a bunch of kids just below the star cutoff. #33 on a 20 person class.

http://www.rankbyoffers.com/2018fbteams/

Good find, thanks for posting. It’s always great to see more ways to apply context to the efforts and efficacy of recruiting.

 

[Pizzaboy1]

It doesn't matter what ranking method you use Wvu recruiting stinks and Holgersen can't recruit HS kids.Recruiting is the lifeline of a college program and that's why Wvu will not be a consistent top tier program in the Big12.Super coat recruiting all you want Narduzzi's recruiting isn't much better than Holgersen's.Narduzzi must step up his recruiting or you'll always be watching the backs of Miami,Clemson,VA Tech and FL State.

 

[h2p_5150]

It doesn't matter what ranking method you use Wvu recruiting stinks and Holgersen can't recruit HS kids.Recruiting is the lifeline of a college program and that's why Wvu will not be a consistent top tier program in the Big12.Super coat recruiting all you want Narduzzi's recruiting isn't much better than Holgersen's.Narduzzi must step up his recruiting or you'll always be watching the backs of Miami,Clemson,VA Tech and FL State.

Narduzzi and Holgerson both recruit at a level that would have won the Big East. In the Big 12 or ACC it is a recipe to go to Belk Bowls and Camping World Bowls in a good year.

 

[joeydavid]

That's great and all but Pitt beat Clemson last year. Miami this year. Should have beaten V-tech the last 2 years if a simple interception is made and a bizarre run after catch doesn't happen.

It doesn't matter what ranking method you use Wvu recruiting stinks and Holgersen can't recruit HS kids.Recruiting is the lifeline of a college program and that's why Wvu will not be a consistent top tier program in the Big12.Super coat recruiting all you want Narduzzi's recruiting isn't much better than Holgersen's.Narduzzi must step up his recruiting or you'll always be watching the backs of Miami,Clemson,VA Tech and FL State.

 

[THEPAPI]

That's great and all but Pitt beat Clemson last year. Miami this year. Should have beaten V-tech the last 2 years if a simple interception is made and a bizarre run after catch doesn't happen.

We shouldve freakin won at least 2-3 more games this year. VT, UNC, SY. Just imagine this team with another years experience. Geez looooweeezzzz the future is bright. 9-3 or 10-2 is the standard going forward. MARK my words.

 

[Pizzaboy1]

Joey you have to beat the "mediocre" teams and the good teams to get on top.Yes the wins over Clemson,Miami and Psu are nice but to be The Team you can't lose to middle of the pack teams.The trouble with Pitt and WVU we don't have the number of elite (4*)athletes to win 10-11 games a year.We upset some teams and then lose to teams we should beat and I'm personally tired of it.But in Wvu case I don't think we can get anyone better than Holgersen at this time.To win 10-11 games a year at Pitt&Wvu the coach must be an excellent recruiter and neither of our coaches are.Neither school has a beautiful campus great gameday atmosphere,national championship aspiration to bring in the athletes without an outstanding recruiter to snag them.

 

[joeydavid]

Pitt's issue more than anything else over the last 3 years was an incomplete roster mostly due to coaching turnover. Defensive struggles is the primary reason for Pitt's mediocre results. Hopefully, they have turned the corner in that area.

At this point Dana is what he is. After just 3 seasons the same can't be said about Narduzzi. Personally, I think Narduzzi will have Pitt in a position to win 10 games in 2019. Where they go from that point will depend largely on recruiting.

Joey you have to beat the "mediocre" teams and the good teams to get on top.Yes the wins over Clemson,Miami and Psu are nice but to be The Team you can't lose to middle of the pack teams.The trouble with Pitt and WVU we don't have the number of elite (4*)athletes to win 10-11 games a year.We upset some teams and then lose to teams we should beat and I'm personally tired of it.But in Wvu case I don't think we can get anyone better than Holgersen at this time.To win 10-11 games a year at Pitt&Wvu the coach must be an excellent recruiter and neither of our coaches are.Neither school has a beautiful campus great gameday atmosphere,national championship aspiration to bring in the athletes without an outstanding recruiter to snag them.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

That's great and all but Pitt beat Clemson last year. Miami this year. Should have beaten V-tech the last 2 years if a simple interception is made and a bizarre run after catch doesn't happen.

And went 5-7 on the season.

On thing is an outlier.
The other is the body of work.

 

[Jpripper88]

That's great and all but Pitt beat Clemson last year. Miami this year. Should have beaten V-tech the last 2 years if a simple interception is made and a bizarre run after catch doesn't happen.

Winning one ofs is a completely different issue than beating those programs more than you lose. If we don't do that (plus win ALL the other games), we can't expect to win the division or the ACC.

 

[cashisking884]

People saying "we beat Miami, that shows recruiting can be overcome," need to look at Miami's QB situation.
Their starter was a low 3* who got the "P5 bump" after he signed with Miami. His best offer before that last minute Miami offer was Arkansas State.
At one point they pulled him and brought in another QB. That QB was as low rated as a player can be in the 247 and still have a 3* ranking. His best offer outside of Miami was probably the Virginia Military Institute.
The Miami game actually shows just how much recruiting matters. You have to stack chips across the board. You can't have Sun Belt and FCS level players anywhere on the field.

 

[SempleFest06]

People saying "we beat Miami, that shows recruiting can be overcome," need to look at Miami's QB situation.
Their starter was a low 3* who got the "P5 bump" after he signed with Miami. His best offer before that last minute Miami offer was Arkansas State.
At one point they pulled him and brought in another QB. That QB was as low rated as a player can be in the 247 and still have a 3* ranking. His best offer outside of Miami was probably the Virginia Military Institute.
The Miami game actually shows just how much recruiting matters. You have to stack chips across the board. You can't have Sun Belt and FCS level players anywhere on the field.

Miami's QB played one of the worst games I have ever seen a QB play. He was airmailing open receivers all day. He wasn't even close on the majority of his throws. It almost seemed like he had the yips.

 

[cashisking884]

Miami's QB played one of the worst games I have ever seen a QB play. He was airmailing open receivers all day. He wasn't even close on the majority of his throws. It almost seemed like he had the yips.

He sucked all year. People act like he had some 4th quarter magic, but the only reason why those games were close in the 4th quarter was because he sucked. As teams got film on him, he was finished. Recruiting matters, particularly at the QB position.

 

[Pantherrevival]

And went 5-7 on the season.

On thing is an outlier.
The other is the body of work.

I wish it wasn't true, but I have to agree. Rather than being unlucky to lose to VT, UNC, SY, I think it's more of a case of being lucky to beat Clemson and PSU.