Yeah but I can also look to Tuscaloosa, Columbus, Clemson, Athens, Baton Rouge, etc. To counter your Austin assertion that rankings don’t matter. People are pointing to an exception while ignoring a pretty consistent rule
No one for the most part is saying rankings are the be all end all. But they are an ok barometer of incoming talent for lay people. Yeah they are flawed and incomplete. But if we pulled a top 50 class and we’re ranked number 1 in the AAC, let’s not pretend that we’d be having this conversation about rankings not mattering, or trusting the coaches evaluations, etc. We would be screaming from the doctors how great it recruiting was.
No, its not. For most high school kids, yeah they are locked in. Still a good chunk of Jucos (with 3 or 4 years of eligibility) and still a hell of a lot of transfers left. I don’t see any needs for additional 1 year transfers unless it is competition at QB, but wouldn’t be surprised if we add 2-3 more juco/transfers with multiple years left. Looking at the roster, we only lost like 9 or 10 scholarship seniors (counting the two transfers out) and have 6 transfers (counting RB Henry) who will come in and contribute immediately so we don’t have a need for a 25 player class.
Transfers are not part of the recruiting class, no matter how much some of you all want them to be. I am not denying the transfers will play significant role in our depth chart and starting 11 on each side of the ball. They already have under the last two coaches. I just maintain that I don’t think it is the right way to build a roster.
Since it’s true transfers don’t count in recruiting rankings then we could be doing way better than expected. We’re getting a lot of good transfers that were highly ranked if they were high school recruits so I think dana is right in going that route and getting the best we can from various sources.
From the majority of the comments on this stream, we might as well drop football for a couple of years, at least until our recruiting is better than Alabama, Clemson and LSU . . . . .
That’s incorrect. Transfers are - in fact - a major part of this year’s UH recruiting class which will not be completed until sometime this summer.
[NOTE: You really shouldn’t confuse the incomplete & misleading “HS recruit rankings” with a full college recruiting class - especially in such a transfer rich environment as Houston, TX.]
Of course - “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”
Ben, I think they are in the minority not the majority. People use data many different ways to make their point believable. They usually start out with a pre conceived notion that fits their beliefs, i.e. “I dont like CDH therefore he probably recruits poorly” then build their case from there.
Even as the numbers get better they have to come up with additional support for their case or admit they are wrong and jump to the other side of the argument. That almost never happens because it is human nature to want to be correct as much as possible.
We need to understand they have boxed themselves into a corner and retreat is not an option. We need to be more understanding of their awkward circumstances and accept them for what they are. Losers
Have to embrace the future. I guarantee within the next two years 247 will start adding the transfers into the class rankings some way. Any player that you recruit to come play for your program is part of the recruiting class, imo. Walk-ons don’t go into into the rating but are part of the class so not sure why transfers wouldn’t be.
But how do you use a single rating system to evaluate HS players vs. JUCO vs. transfers? How do you compare a Kopp to D’Eriq King when grading for a class? I don’t doubt something will be done but it seems like it will further water down what already is discounted.
So as we move into the transfer era, how do you NOT adjust an obsolete rating system that doesn’t consider an increasing number of their recruits?
By way of example, in the current obsolete system let’s say that a school was wildly successful enough in recruiting to have the entire starting lineup from Alabama transfer into their school. So with those recruits they would likely win themselves a national championship with the lowest or worst rated class in the history of college FB.
Would transfer ratings be zero sum, where we would lose the same amount of points that Miami gains when we lose a D’Eriq King? Do we apply a factor to a player’s rating to account for the amount of eligibility they have remaining? Is a senior year worth the same amount as a sophomore year?
Like I said, I believe something will be done. I am posing the question of what kind of system will make sense and actually be meaningful. We already know the current system has several flaws and now we are going to layer another imperfect grading of transfers into the mix. Will a UH transfer picking a P5 (eg King) be graded higher while a P5 transfer into UH be lower (eg Kyle Allen vs Kyler Murray)?
It will be interesting to watch but I assume the system’s value will be as useful as Preseason Top 25 rankings: for discussion and clicks.
Unless you keep stats on every player every year, a loss of a player to graduation or transfer has no standing with the NEW folks coming in. This is a “recruiting” valuation. It evaluates incoming athletes and NO others. Again, to be completely accurate, the value should be placed on the entire team, not just a valuation of recruits . . . . .
Possibly keeping them separate might work. One grading system for HS recruits and one for transfer/JUCO’s. There might be a way to meld the two scores into a composite but initially keep track of them separately and give weight to the value of each equally.
Like (other) Ben said, it would just be for your recruiting class like it currently is, not who is lost. It wont be easy to rate transfers but it isn’t even close to easy to rate high school kids. It could be argued that rating transfers is easier because you have a base already from the high school rating, stats/performance from some already, and then you put together the final rating based on how many and which programs are offering (just like they do for high schoolers). I would definitely rate transfers with more years of eligibility higher than similar ones with fewer. They already do that with Jucos, there were no 5 stars and only three 4 stars even though all the top programs are fighting for those top players. Alabama signed a 3 star juco because they know he can help them win. I have been making the argument that jucos should have been rated higher this year because they get an extra year of eligibility.
Looks like there are actually a couple transfer ratings already on 247. Check out the 2020 class, Jovanni Stewart with the 3 star, .8400 (T) next to his name. Then in 2019 with Jordan Moore. Stewart got a bump from his high school rating and Moore lost rating, both make sense to me. Checked SMU’s and a few guys in past years got ratings too.
Seems funny that no matter how many times the rankings process is explained members still want to throw out the absolute rank to satisfy their negative interests
To be fair, I posted both Underdog Dynasty recruiting stories, one from Broback, who thinks that Houston is on the cusp, and the other perspective. No echo chamber on CoogFans.
We go undefeated, there will be an echo chamber and rightfully so.