USF Recruiting? Yeah, pretty good...

[IBulleve]

This early signing day is a great illustration of Charlie Strong as a whole. No surprises, pretty much what everyone expected, and extremely average. 

As long as these guys execute their signature we should be good. 

[BrassBulls12]

25 minutes ago, JTrue said:

They have some sort of formula that takes into account both the number of recruits AND the quality of those recruits. You can kind of figure out the gist of it if you play with the recruit calculator and add/subtract people from the list to see what the overall impact is.

i understand that, I just don't think it is a very good formula at reflecting the better class. The fact that we are bringing in two more players that could becoming reliable starters should out weight the one more player they have overall and the .0167 advantage they have in the top three players. 

i guess my point is, I don't really think you should take these rankings at face value. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by BrassBulls12

[bullstampede9922]

4 minutes ago, IBulleve said:

This early signing day is a great illustration of Charlie Strong as a whole. No surprises, pretty much what everyone expected, and extremely average. 

As long as these guys execute their signature we should be good. 

 

Hopefully, we get a few ready to step up and overachieve like Bell, Ford and Horne in the last class.  

[BrassBulls12]

Keep in mind there are still some good recruits out there that are considered warm on USF that could flip this class to near the top of the conference. Guys like Kenny Logan and Steven Linton. 

[NewEnglandBull]

Rivals still has us at #2...goes to show the inexact science of recruiting.

Edited December 19, 2018 by NewEnglandBull

[JTrue]

13 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

i understand that, I just don't think it is a very good formula at reflecting the better class. The fact that we are bringing in two more players that could becoming reliable starters should out weight the one more player they have overall and the .0167 advantage they have in the top three players. 

i guess my point is, I don't really think you should take these rankings at face value. 

I'm not terribly concerned about tenths of a recruiting point. Luckily, we have plenty of posters here who can explain to me how those fractions of a point are evidence of CCS being a terrible recruiter.

[BrassBulls12]

1 minute ago, JTrue said:

I'm not terribly concerned about tenths of a recruiting point. Luckily, we have plenty of posters here who can explain to me how those fractions of a point are evidence of CCS being a terrible recruiter.

If you need know how bad CCS is or how bad he makes our offense, TBP has got you in spades. 

[Bull Dozer]

This class is fine and will be top 3 in the conference come February.   Also, the services typically reevaluate guys in January and we have some guys that should see a bump.   

[Azmodi]

1 hour ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Rivals still has us at #2...goes to show the inexact science of recruiting.

I sure do find the comparison between UCF and South Florida's recruits a little off? We both have the same number of recruits. We have one more 3 star then they do. None of us has 4 or 5 star recruits and we have a higher per recruit grade, yet we are ranked lower than them. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Azmodi

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, Azmodi said:

I sure do find the comparison between UCF and South Florida's recruits a little off? We both have the same number of recruits. We have one more 3 star then they do. None of us has 4 or 5 star recruits and we have a higher per recruit grade, yet we are ranked lower than them. 

Maybe there is a need component to the algorithm or a bonus for diversity of class. Like if you have 12 upperclassmen linemen and you bring in 20 offensive linemen that are higher ratings you wouldn’t be rewarded as much as you would for filling needs and more positions ( I am only guessing based on how I would build it but I have no idea how it actually works).