With his first year as a head coach under his belt, Major Applewhite focused on finishing up his second recruiting class at Houston. Last year’s class ranked 68th in the country while dealing with the transition of a new coach. Applewhite’s class of 2018 is currently 70th, which is also good for fourth in the AAC (they also finished fourth last year).
Houston’s coaching staff got their work done early, and had their class completed before final National Signing Day. Hopefully that’s a sign of how the early signing period will affect recruiting for college football, and take less stress off of this later date. The Cougars have 22 recruits to sign with them in their 2018 class, and added a graduate transfer as well. Darrion Owens, a linebacker from Miami, will join Houston this season to give the class a total of 23 players. Let’s take a look at the players coming in to Houston this year (all information is from 247Sports).
Considering one of the excuses for promoting applewhite was his connections to high school coaches it is disconcerting that our recruiting is two spots worse that last year.
Kendall will hopefully make up for it through better coaching.
Unless a guy is clearly gifted, like Ed Oliver, I don’t put too much stock in the rankings. Look at who has been successful in the NFL from UH since rankings started and I don’t think any of them were 4 or 5 star recruits.
Granted, the odds are better that you can build a great program by loading up on 4 stars and the occasional 5, but we can win with our guys if they work hard in the off-season to get stronger and faster and the coaches build the schemes around the players’ talent.
We are shooting for success against college teams. If a player does well in the nfl that’s fine and dandy but doesn’t help UH much except as a bragging point.
Plenty of college players have been outstanding but then not fared well in the nfl.
It blows my mind every year. You look at our players and the accolades that they come in with. All District, All region, first team, second team, etc., etc., and yet they are ranked as 2 and 3 star guys. And of course we all know what happens the minute they switch to UT or another “big” program, they automatically get a one star bump at the minimum. We filled needs with quality guys.
I’ve heard that claim more than a few times but haven’t seen any evidence. I’m not being difficult but can you name a couple of players who have switched and automatically had their stars improve?
No I cant name any players off the top of my mind, but having follwed this process for my 58 years, i have seen it happen. It is anecdotal. All I know is that when you read the bio’s of the players coming in, they are quality all whatever team members and yet are rated low. Why?
There always one or two, most of there’s guys are borderline either direction high two becomes a low three out vice versa.
But I’m more in line with you, I believe rankings do matter in terms of talent. Now some coaches are great at finding diamonds in the rough. Art was, but he’s the only guy who had that credibility with me at this point.
This article helps quantify things. There is no way to have a comprehensive evaluation process for the entire set of athletes coming out of HS so ratings are subjective.
Also, you have to look at returning talent, needs, transfers, etc. Trust the coaches and staff on this stuff and then evaluate their classes on the field. Winning NSD is good but winning on the field is better. No one knows right now whether this class is a success or not.
The rankings are a result of the players committing early to us. They stop adjusting them upward. Many of our guys were all district or even district MVP, but are low 3 star or even 2 star. The math doesn’t add up. This happens because they A) stop scouting them because they commit to a non-money conference team and B) because they want the money conference teams to be ranked higher so they bump some of their commits. The place you can see that most happen is the lower tier money schools like Kansas and Illinois.
Yet the moment the RB last year decommmited from us and went to UT he went from a 3 star to a 4 star.
Also, 247 used to keep a graph of their changes, which doesn’t seem to be there anymore and I can guarantee you I’m right. To put it in perspective Taj Brown was in an all american bowl… mid-level three star ranking. Jack Freeman, a two star was at one of the special bowls and had an member of the press say he dominated the whole week and was the biggest standout.
Max Banes who has massive size, talent, and accolades didn’t even get rated until after he committed to us. They never bothered because they knew, as a legacy, he was going to commit. Even now, they have him just barely as a three star.
All of this I agree with. What I’m saying is that the ratings of many of our commits have changed up and down. Will Smith was barely .8 when he committed now he’s. 84 and change.
He’s just one example. 247 adjusts the composites several times each year. The reasons look fishy when a guy’s rating jumps right after he gets a P5 offer from big program. but you can’t say they stop adjusting our recruits just because. That isn’t true.
Wasnt Marquez Bimage a low 3 star and was bumped to a higher 3 star? He flipped when Judas left. Also, you are really finding any excuse to hate on Applewhite. He gets us players that are affected by genetics and not skill. He has good relationships with coaches who talk us up and we are proven to send players to NFL which is what a kid wants in the end. So if we can offer 1) playing time 2) a good education 3) NFL road 4) wins. What does it matter if the kid was a 4 star at 90 and our kid was a 3 star at 87? Worried about the wrong things with CA.
One is disappointment in our ranking considering applewhite was supposedly so highly touted as in with high school coaches.
The other is the possible myth that our recruits would actually gain a star if they committed elsewhere. There’s evidence of that. It also evidence to the contrary. The real fact is that lower stars have resulted in losing records against teams with more star players.
I think they should rank the teams as such:
Group A 1-10
Group B: the next 10 alphabetically
Group C: the next 30 alphabetically
Group D: all the rest alphabetically