As part of the Early Signing Day thread, I mentioned I'd do a bit of a deep dive into how the classes have panned out so far, with respect to how compact or gapped the recruits for each team are.
Based on the numbers I gathered during ESD, here are the basics for each team:
Clemson:
Max Rating: .9851
Min Rating: .8452
Mean: .9380 (9 rated above mean, 8 rated below)
Median: .9414
Variance Above Mean: .0471
Variance Below Mean: .0928
Total Variance: .1399
Miami:
Max: .9941
Min: .8297
Mean: .8981 (9 rated above, 9 rated below)
Median: .9017
Variance Above Mean: .0960
Variance Below Mean: .0684
Total Variance: .1644
UNC:
Max: .9838
Min: .8272
Mean: .9093 (6 rated above, 7 rated below)
Median: .9061
Variance Above Mean: .0745
Variance Below Mean: .0821
Total Variance: .1566
Pitt:
Max: .9454
Min: .8221
Mean: .8682 (8 rated above, 11 rated below)
Median: .8628
Variance Above Mean: .0772
Variance Below Mean: .0461
Total Variance: .1233
UVA:
Max: .9461
Min: .8262
Mean: .8615 (7 rated above, 16 rated below)
Median: .8593
Variance Above Mean: .0846
Variance Below Mean: .0353
Total Variance: .1199
FSU:
Max: .9082
Min: .8438
Mean: .8797 (7 above, 7 below)
Median: .8807
Variance Above Mean: .0644
Variance Below Mean: .0359
Total Variance: .0644
NC State:
Max: .9206
Min: .7802
Mean: .8636 (9 above, 9 below)
Median: .8647
Variance Above Mean: .0568
Variance Below Mean: .0836
Total Variance: .1404
Louisville:
Max: .8910
Min: .8358
Mean: .8611 (9 above, 10 below)
Median: .8613
Variance Above Mean: .0299
Variance Below Mean: .0253
Total Variance: .0552
GT:
Max: .9009
Min: .8074
Mean: .8629 (10 above, 6 below)
Median: .8678
Variance Above Mean: .0380
Variance Below Mean: .0555
Total Variance: .0935
BC:
Max: .9252
Min: .8126
Mean: .8498 (9 above, 16 below)
Median: .8551
Variance Above Mean: .0754
Variance Below Mean: .0372
Total Variance: .1126
VT:
Max: .8863
Min: .8146
Mean: .8506 (13 above, 11 below, 1 right at mean)
Median: .8593
Variance Above Mean: .0357
Variance Below Mean: .0360
Total Variance: .0717
Syracuse:
Max: .8850
Min: .8234
Mean: .8448 (8 above, 10 below)
Median: .8411
Variance Above Mean: .0402
Variance Below Mean: .0214
Total Variance: .0616
Duke:
Max: .8810
Min: .8282
Mean: .8520 (6 above, 10 below)
Median: .8512
Variance Above Mean: .0290
Variance Below Mean: .0238
Total Variance: .0528
Wake Forest:
Max: .8587
Min: .7986
Mean: .8377 (8 above, 9 below)
Median: .8376
Variance Above Mean: .0210
Variance Below Mean: .0391
Total Variance: .0601
Comments
So you're saying the pain isn't over yet?
I think one issue is that is really noticeable the last two seasons, regardless of class size, is avg recruit rating (listed as the mean in OP.)
2021 - .8506
2020 - .8498
---
2019 - .8739
2018 - .8746
2017 - .8613
2016 (transition class) - .8485
2015 - .8635
2014 - .8599
2013 - .8770
2012 - .8646
Somehow we went from a team that was averaging .86-.87ish rated classes every year to lower .85ish rated classes. This is particular troublesome when you consider there has also been rankings inflation over time. There are more higher rated players (blue chippers) than in the past, so it's not an identical distribution through this time period. Our average recruit rating going down while avg rankings are going up in general via inflation makes it a particularly troublesome issue.
Fortunately for us the ACC is not nearly as competitive in recruiting, so relative to our peers it should be much easier for us to get back into that upper 3rd or top 4 in recruiting talent. In the short term, we will be depending heavily on solid eval and development from the 2020 and 2021 classes. We've already hit one gem with Dorian Strong at an upcoming position of need.
I think it's just a matter of our programs stock slipping. Most of these numbers are based on offers and many if our players rating is reliant on our offer. That tracks with our performance.
A VT offer isn't worth what it used to be.
Also not landing recruits with other high profile offers
Two questions, how many open slots in the spring and are there any good recruiticorns left to up our rankings? Anyone we actually have a shot at that is interested in us? Since we seem to be stuck with fuente for 4 more years it would be nice if he at least got some 4 stars so we can stay ~.500 team and not sink any lower...
TL ; DR
Hey 07Hokie - do you have the raw numbers in a google sheet? If you're willing to share them, I'll create a box plot for each team, like I did here. I think a graphic like this would make it a lot easier to view and compare data.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15jdOX9i_i_VtzLcGQ57g1Rk5PBYqBCSL...
Awesome thanks! I'll take a look this evening.
EDIT: you shared the private doc. I made a request to view only.
You should be good to go now
Going over the numbers, I'm starting actually become less concerned with the recruiting class.
I've been reading a lot of Bitter lately on The Athletic (got a subscription given to me as a X-Mas present) - he points out there is not a lot of differentiation between the 25th best class and the 45th best class. It's more of an "eye of the beholder" situation in 2021, especially with most prospects being devoid of senior year film and the typical excess of camp evaluations. I don't want to give Fuente's staff a pass because he failed to deliver on his "top 25 recruiting class" promise.
I'm kind of eager to start reading French's evaluation on our class - maybe there are morer hidden gems coming to Blacksburg that we're giving credit for.
Tapp and Teerlinck are about to have a crucial opportunity to show us what they can do at the DE position with what we have on the roster to develop from the last class (Rob Wooten, Alec Bryant, Justin Beadles), and what we are bringing in this year (Stretch Carroll, Cole Nelson).
If we think these are high ceiling, good eval pick ups, we have to prove it via their development over the next couple years.
I've embraced this reality (although last years class wasn't close to these numbers). My issue is that I don't yet trust this staff (outside of Vice and the D-staff hasn't had the opportunity to prove themselves) to develop players.
The QB situation has been a revolving door with no true growth happening at that position.
We have landed WR heavy classes and are still razor thin at that position.
Fuente has not landed a high school running back that he's been able to put on the field and find success.
Time will tell I guess.
I don't think WR depth will be as big of an issue next year if Payoute comes back healthy and his recruiting ranking holds. It's clear losing Wiggins was a big deal.
Lecht landed Herbert and has been our best recruiter, overall has been an upgrade over Zohn.
QB development has been awful, we recruited three blue-chip prospects and none of them reached their potential.
For QB's who was the third?
Burmester was a four star
WR depth i always an issue with Fu. always. his goon strength coach can't keep them healthy. Tre will miss games, Smith will miss games, etc. Fu has not been able to develop the young guys- or they all transferred out. WR depth will be a huge issue next year, as always.
The lack of depth is insane considering how heavily we have recruited the position
this is remarkable when you consider the amount of RBs on the roster
It's entirely possible.
But getting them here is only half the battle. They've got to be put in position to succeed, and coached up to succeed.
Shout out to 07Hokie for sharing the data. Here's a box plot comparing the ACC 2021 recruiting classes:
Also, here's an update to my chart from 6 months ago comparing Virginia Tech recruiting classes in the modern recruiting era:
For those who aren't familiar with box plots, here's an easy guide on how to interpret. Note that the X's in the middle are the mean, where as the middle horizontal line is the median.
Thanks for putting this together, it is great to visualize the data.
This tells me everything is not as doom and gloom as folks around here seem to think. The only thing that is obvious from these plots is that Fuente has had less success than Beamer getting the best of the best outliers to come to VT. I'd also love to know if there is a significant difference between a 0.85 and a 0.87 average, I'd wager the delta is insignificant to the record of a program.
I would argue the opposite, because of this:
The thing is, the 'best of the best' guys are the ones who are true difference makers. Quoting some context from the last time I did this exercise:
Since posting this 6 months ago, Hunter has left the team, and Nester has transferred out after a strong season. Hunter is a bust, and I'd call Nester a contributor since he only made an impact for a single season (though I'd upgrade him if the TKP X's & O's experts told me too), putting us at 7 Studs, 1 contributor, and 2 bust for all players ranked above .9500
Anyways, the point still stands - raising the floor or median recruiting ranking doesn't impact the W-L Record the same way that raising the ceiling does.
We have 2 division rivals (UNC & Miami) recruiting at an average that is higher than/similar to the best player we've recruited in the last two cycles. Miami and UNC both snagged at least one player who (by VT standards) has a 70% chance of being a 'stud' - someone who can single handedly impact the win/loss record.
IF the 2021 recruiting rankings are reasonably accurate despite the lack of scouting by 247 & friends (and, to be fair, they may not be), I don't see a way for us to win the coastal for the next 2-3 years.
If that were the case then we wouldn't have Miami perennially... bak. Miami recruiting at a high level is not something new.
I would argue the opposite, this is a team sport where you need 11 guys all doing their jobs correctly. Raising the floor is MUCH more important than getting that one 0.999 recruiticorn. It gives you depth when that recruitcorn get injured, doesn't pan out, or transfers because the 3 star senior who has worked his butt off for four to six years gives the team a better chance to win.
I don't think Fuente's staff has done a great job in this area, but the data shows that they have consistently performed at approximately the same level as Beamer's staff did. Do I want to see improvement in this area, certainly, but the first 4 years of Fuente's tenure showed a clear trend in the right direction. Last year was a regression, but this year is a toss-up with how little football was played at the high school level in 2020.
To clarify, I'm suggesting that raising the ceiling of a recruiting class will have better results than raising the floor - My argument is that top quartile of a recruiting class is much better indicator of success than the level of the average or median recruit.
In the last decade there have only been 287 5-star players, and according to Saturdays Down South, about one third of those players 'lived up to the hype' (whatever that means). The thing is, those odds are really, really good compared to lesser ranked players.
Let's look at this piece by CBS sports piece that analyzes the Odds of Becoming an All-American by Recruiting Ranking:
Now, there are 10 other players on the field at all times, and obviously their contributions matter as well, but point still stands: One 5-star will not just have significantly more impact than multiple 3 stars, but they are significantly more likely to have any impact than multiple 3-stars.
Thanks for this! I love me a good chart. I am actually very surprised to see our recent recruiting compared to 2005. I think a lot of the negativity is driven by the shifting landscape in college football. The big boys are growing exponentially and we got left behind a long time ago even though it looks like we're still doing solid
The Top 5-10 schools very rarely change. These are the schools a you could hire somebody who knows nothing of football and still manage a top 10 class, on brand alone. The rich will keep getting richer, talent-wise, barring a few blue-chippers going to smaller or local schools.
The next 40-50 or "Middle Class" classes will remain the same, just shuffling for position as an also ran. A great coach can make them relevant and a respected program, but they probably will never see a playoff game, barring catching lightning in a bottle.
The remaining 70-80 are pretty solid, barring that one or two local kids who shock the recruiting world and move them up 20 places in the rankings for one year. Maybe a big name coach will reel in a surprise or two.
Just looking at VT for a minute. Our classes going back to 2017 are: 43-76-26-24-26. The gap between #1 and #22 in 2020 was roughly the same as the gap between #22 and #76. Recruiting is very much a disparity in the haves and have nots.
I can't speak for anyone else, but framing recruiting this way really takes the wind out of my sails as far as complaining about Techs success in the area (or lack thereof). At the end of the day, we're splitting hairs over ultimately being second class citizens in terms of football
Over the last 4 years, only 19 teams had a Top 10 class, with 13 teams had multiple Top 10 recruiting classes. 9 had a Top 5 class, while 6 had multiple Top 5 classes. Georgia and Alabama had Top 5 classes in each of the last 4 classes (2017-2020). There will be no new schools breaking into the Top 10 this year. The Top 5 will be the same as last year, just shuffled.
The SEC accounts for 47.5% of Top 10 classes and 55% of Top 5.
The Big Ten accounts for 15% of Top 10, and 20% of the Top 5.
The Big 12 accounts for 12.5% of the Top 10 and 10% of the Top 5
The Pac 12 accounts for 7.5% of the Top 10 and 10% of the Top 5
The ACC accounts for 12.5% of the Top 10 and 5% of the Top 5
Notre Dame accounts for the remaining 5% of the Top 10.
Anything before 2011 should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That's when recruiting services started ranking a lot more kids. This is the classic "If Kam Chancellor were a recruit today, he'd be a high 4-star with offers to Bama and OSU" argument.
I added some commentary in another thread above, but, unless Fuente was able to expose the market inefficiency caused by COVID, I don't see many bright spots in the next 2-3 years.
Great visualizations Bar. Thanks for taking the time to you and 07.
I want to bring this back to Fuente's "plan" to be "the best developmental program in America". You can't be successful just averaging .87 on the recruiting trail; tou need game changers on your roster to be successful in college football.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that Wisconsin is currently the best developmental program in America. Take a look at their rankings. With the exception of 2016, they always land multiple players with a ranking >.9000, and in the last three classes have landed players above the .9500 threshold.
The 2013, 2015, and 2017 classes are how we should look in most years - an average between .85 and .875, with 1-2 players each year that we can rely on to be game changers. That's similar to Pitt's 2021 class. If we can do that year in and year out, we will easily be a top 4 recruiting team in the ACC, which gives us a good shot to win the coastal each year.
LOL. the best developmental team in America, as most guys that you actually have to develop either don't (patterson, hunter) or transfer (Hudson, Simmons, Bowick, etc). Funny. I plan to be a tall handsome rock star one day too.
I mean, Farley, Darrasaw, and Diablo are all likely to be drafted this year, no?
That said, hitting on three 2/3 star players means nothing if you can't capitalize on the 10 bluechip players you've landed.
Darrisaw is a developmental gem. I give them that. Farley improved greatly from year 1 to 2 as well. Deablo being a 5-6th round pick (my prediction) is not indicative of great development, imo.
Great stuff 07Hokie and thanks bar1990 for plotting it all out.
We aren't competitive with Pitt and lost to Wake. We are 11-13 over the past 2 seasons, with the 14th and 11th ranked ACC classes coming in behind that. Two promising young OL- 1 a 4 star recruit - just left for rival/conference programs. I wish deep stats spun this positive, but they don't. We are Wake. We have settled for not being able to compete because of "facilities" and kept a coach that lost to an online school because we have accepted being Wake Forest football. That sucks.
Doug Nester and Bryan Hudson were both 4 star stud recruits
I think after we lost to Clemson in the 2016 ACCCG Fuente said something about how we're going to be catching them sometime soon
Here we are 4 years later and our best recruit is only slightly better than Clemson's worst recruit. Forgive me for not seeing how in the sam-hell VT is ever going to catch Clemson at this rate
This is my issue. Fuente wasn't brought in here to maintain the status quo. He was brought in here to elevate recruiting and the offense. He's done neither. Recruiting is worse and yeah, yeah, yeah deep offensive stats indicate -slight- efficiency improvements over Leoffler, but nothing huge.
yeah I agree completely. And it's why I am so disappointed that he is still employed. Recruiting isn't going to get better unless he makes major changes and all indicators point to him not making any major changes. VT football is going to continue its slide into mediocrity as long as Fuente is at the helm. He has shown an adequate amount of evidence in his 5 years that he is not capable of elevating this program. Conversely, he has not shown any evidence to the contrary.