Virginia Tech ranks 26th in 4-year recruiting rankings

Bill Connelly released the weighted 4-year recruiting rankings for all FBS schools, and VT came in comfortably at 26th. Fuente has three of those four classes, so we *should* begin to see real results of these classes over the next year or two, considering we had a few definite down years prior to 2015.

Edit: Bama was #1 duh. Clemson came in at 10th, and FSU and Miami were the other ACC teams ranked ahead of VT.

UNC is 29th, and while UVA was ranked 44th, they rose almost 10 percentage points from last year's 4-year composite #LOLHoosRising

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2019/2/7/18215228/college-football-recruiting-rankings-2019-class

Forums: 
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

Music to my ears.

I anxiously await the results over the next few years.

And that's still with the class of 2016 anchor around our necks.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

From the piece:

Using previous years of data as the testing ground, I found the projections work best when they are weighted as follows: this year's recruiting class accounts for about 67 percent of the projection, last year's accounts for 15 percent, the class from two years ago accounts for 15 percent, and the class from three years out accounts for about 3 percent

So 2016 is only counting for 3% of that ranking. Not much of an anchor.

Twitter me

1.SEC (87.0 percent)
2.Big Ten (72.4)
3.Pac-12 (68.8)
4.ACC (67.8)

That's the average percentile rating for each conference for the 2019 class. That's embarrassing. This should be setting off alarms at ACC HQ. I think it illustrates just how far behind we are in the highest earning sport and only further indicates the incompetence of Swofford and the cost of dragging out the ACC network a decade behind other conferences.

Come to Blacksburg and see what the Hokie Pokie is really all about

5. Big 12 (65.3)
6. AAC (29.3)

Just to put the next two in perspective. We're a few points ahead of the Big XII-II-II+II, and a hell of a lot ahead of the top G5 conference.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Looks to me like SEC and everybody else far behind.

Here's where I think having BC, Duke, Syracuse and Wake in the conference hurt the ACC compared to just Vandy for the SEC with respect to smaller private universities

I'm going to take the data they provided and put something together visually, to try to prove your theory.

I can't do it at work, but I can when I get home!

What's
Important
Now

The darker the red, the lower the number. The darker the green, the higher the number.

As you can see the SEC has an insane amount of top tier recruiting classes over the past 4 years. Only one of the dark greens is .89 for the SEC. The rest are all in the .9's somewhere.

As for the ACC, I didn't realize how bad Lousiville is. Boston College is the unnamed rectangle. Surprisingly Duke doesn't bring us down compared to 4 other schools

EDIT: Here is the New Interactive Graph

Click Here to See the Interactive Map

The Embed Code won't let you click on it in the thread.

var divElement = document.getElementById('viz1550104351783'); var vizElement = divElement.getElementsByTagName('object')[0]; vizElement.style.width='100%';vizElement.style.height=(divElement.offsetWidth*0.75)+'px'; var scriptElement = document.createElement('script'); scriptElement.src = 'https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js'; vizElement.parentNode.insertBefore(scriptElement, vizElement);

What's
Important
Now

Very cool. Helpful for visualizing. Thanks!

Also, waited =/= weighted

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Thanks for the heads up. I whipped this up right before going to bed. I just realized I can embed the interactive chart. I'll get that done later tonight.

What's
Important
Now

There is zero reason the ACC should be behind the PAC.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Total theorization here, but I think this comes down to geographic location as much as anything. California tied for Texas with the highest number of 4* and 5* players in the country this year at 48 a piece. Briefly looking over those 48 recruits, it seems that the majority stayed on the west coast, thus sending them to PAC-12. The only other states that have more than 40 blue chips are all basically battleground states with heavy influences from more than one conference: Texas (Big12, SEC), Florida (ACC, SEC), Georgia (ACC, SEC).

After that group, the talent level drops off a cliff, with the next highest state (Mississippi) coming in with 16 blue chip recruits. Looking at the two states that theoretically should be dominated by ACC teams (North Carolina-15, Virginia-11), you can tell that we are at a stark disadvantage from a talent standpoint. Even if ACC teams had a 100% hit rate on blue chip prospects from VA and NC, and PAC-12 teams had a 50% hit rate on recruits from CA, we would only finish with two more blue chips than the Pac-12.

Agreed. It's also important to note that 10/12 of the PAC-12 schools are public universities with 20k+ enrollments and USC has an enrollment of 45k, making Stanford is the only private school on the smaller side (16k enrollment).

Conversely, the ACC has 5 private universities (not counting ND since were talking football) with only Syracuse having an enrollment of 20k+. BC, Duke, and Miami are similar to Stanford's enrollment and Wake's is not even half (7k).

I'd bet that the ACC has a superior median recruiting ranking but the private schools outside of Miami substantially affect the mean.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

and why are we so concerned with kids "staying in state again"?

of course its important to land the elite guys from VA but we act like a 4 star VA is better than a 4 star from FL. IDK what state the 4 star kids come from. I want kids that want to be here.

I prefer the staff to keep focusing on FL, and really like the way Fuente and staff have at least tried to go after TX guys lately which is something we never did under beamer. we haven't landed any yet I don't believe but they are trying to make head way with relationships fuente forged back when he was at TCU and prior.

twitter @smithey_daniel
head scout BSP scouting specializing in north florida/ southern GA highschool football scouting

I totally agree. I guess the rationale I could accept for "keeping kids in state" would be that it means we're becoming the default school for any quality players in the state. It's more of a symptom of doing things right than a required step to be back where we need to be.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

we act like a 4 star VA is better than a 4 star from FL

Did you read LA's post? That was no where near the point he was making... I don't think anyone in our fan base would turn down a 4* from FL, or any other state for that matter

Yeah I don't necessarily disagree with the post but I don't understand how it relates to the post he's replying to.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

The point isn't that a 4* from VA is any better or any worse than a 4* from FL or TX. Rather, it is likely easier to get the 4* from VA to stay in state than it would be to lure a 4* to Blacksburg from TX, and we should be the dominant recruiting program in VA. We aren't, so we need to figure out why that is the case and fix it.

Bingo. Having a strong in-state presence produces a more stable future. The likelihood of us pulling 4*'s from WV, Kentucky, Chicago, etc. with any regularity is pretty low and requires more work. Knowing that you'll hit on a certain amount of in-state prospects every cycle ensure that you at least have a solid base to every class. Relying on those players to come in from out of state is a risky proposition.

I agree for the states you mentioned in the above post. in the OP though it showed the mass amount of blue chippers in FL, CA, TX, 2 of those states we recruit in. Florida weve been pretty consistent in for a while. If fuente can keep pushing in texas and make some head way and get some in roads there im ok with VA misses.

IMO its a lot harder to do damage control and clean up messes that fu didn't even make in the #757 from way back when than it is for him to go down to florida or even texas and develop his own reputation.

I wasn't really combating his OP, I agree with everything LA said up top, just pointing out the fact that HE eluded to about where the blue chippers are coming from and where we are currently actively recruiting. The importance of locking down the state of VA has become less and less important with this current staff. VA was super important to beamer and the whole #thisisHOME but I just don't get the same vibe that is what fuente and staff are selling. Of course VT social media still uses it, and as fans we all want the VA talent to stay in VA. I just don't think that's the future of recruiting under Fuente he has really broadened VTs foot print. (something about support staff) which means some is being spent. Evaluators are out there. we have yet to see how good they are. but with offers all across the east coach and South eastern region from miss, bama, the Carolinas, ga, fla, tx, and some Midwest states mixed in here and there as well as north east states id say this is a HUGE difference in the way beamers recruiting mindset of #thisishome.

twitter @smithey_daniel
head scout BSP scouting specializing in north florida/ southern GA highschool football scouting

I don't think he cares where the talent comes from either, and frankly I don't think he likes the dramatics of what goes on in the 757. I think it's part of the reason why we didn't push for guys like Sheridan Jones and Darryl Jones, and it certainly factored into Adarious Jones' decision (is everyone in the 757 named Jones?). The Capehart situation was a eye opening one for him, and I think there's a reason why the 757 recruits we've landed during his tenure have been pretty high character and low drama guys (Hunter, Chatman, Tayvion, Artis, Becton, Grimz). Like it or not, Fuente is a no non-nonsense kind of guy when it comes to recruiting. Either you're what he's looking for, or you're not. Either you're in, or your out. Very little room for interpretation and he does not have much patience for guys that want to play around.

I agree that we will need to recruit outside of the state to compete nationally and a five star is a five star no matter where he's from. But if you can't dominate your own state in recruiting then how you gonna go to Florida and Texas and pull in a bunch of top rated recruits. It's like saying we don't need to win the ACC to win the national championship. Technically no, but if you can't win the ACC you probably ain't beating Bama either.

If you can provide me with the data set of where 5 and 4-star athletes live, compared to where they go to school, I can whip up a heat map very quickly in Tablue and post the results here.

What's
Important
Now

Not exactly what you are looking for but you asking for this data to create a map reminded me of this website. Shows where each team recruited players from since 2002. You can hover and see the names of the players, their national ranking and position ranking.

http://thedataface.com/2018/08/sports/college-football-map

2.Big Ten (72.4)
3.Pac-12 (68.8)
4.ACC (67.8)

Looks like to me these are all pretty close. May not be optimal, but pretty close.

So long as VT is in the upper part of the conference we're in, I'd say that's at least OK for now, though I'd like to see continual improvement.

And there's the smart play.

I want to see what the standard deviation for each conference is.

"I liked you guys a lot better when everybody told you you were terrible." -Justin Fuente

We recruit much better than BC, Pitt, GT - 3 teams we play every year, and 3 teams we lost to last year. I think we will see this start to improve as these kids mature in Fuente's program. Need to beat these teams more often than not until they start recruiting better than we do.

I feel like this news is totally a Rorschach-style, glass half-full/empty thing.

On one hand, I'm kind of encouraged because it shows that we're actually getting pretty decent talent into the program.

On the other hand, 26th is definitely not the ranking of a team that is expecting to compete consistently for a conference championship. We're going to need to do better than that.

The doll's trying to kill me and the toaster's been laughing at me.

Pitt made the ACC title game and their 4 year average is 51. GT played in the ACC title game twice in recent years and their 4 year average is 52. Duke played in the ACC title game and their 4 year average is 48. North Carolina played in the ACC title game and their 4 year average is 29.

Northwestern made the B1G title game this season and their 4 year average is 50. Wisconsin has played in 5 B1G title games and their 4 year average is 28. Michigan State has played in 3 B1G title games and their 4 year average is 27.

Same goes for Arizona (55), Arizona State (31), Colorado (43), and Utah (40) from the PAC-12.

Anyway, I think 26 is high enough to consistently compete for a conference championship. The issue is if you regularly face a dominant team in the conference championship (and Clemson has been the 2nd best team in the country over the past 5 seasons), it's difficult to win that game, much less go on to defeat 2 more elite teams in the CFP. Ultimately, given the current state of Clemson's program, I'd have a hard time disagreeing that 26 is not good enough to truly compete for a national championship. The most realistic path that I see is to make conference championship games and incrementally increase our recruiting to the Washington/Stanford range (Top 20ish), at which point we can become a more serious threat to knock off a couple elite teams.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

You make a good point, and certainly backed it up with great examples.

But if I may nit-pick a little, I made a point of saying consistently competing for conference championships, not occasionally playing in a title game. While its true that you can't win a title if you aren't in the game in the first place, I don't think Pitt, GT or Duke were actually legitimate contenders to win the ACC any of those years.

I just feel like the 26th best team in the country seems like about an 8-4 team most years, and I'd like to see us doing better than that (although I'd take 8-4 in 2019 in a second).

The doll's trying to kill me and the toaster's been laughing at me.

Haven't we averaged about 26th for the last 20 years or so? Seems like we're always thereabouts. And have certainly competed for the conference championship more often than not over that period.

Counterpoint: when we were consistently competing for the conference championship, the ACC was not as good at football at the top as it has been in recent years.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I think the last two years the ACC has been as bad as ever outside of Clemson. I might have to dig up my post about this misconception because I don't feel like typing it all out again.

Outside of Clemson. That's my point. If our recruiting has been consistent and it was good enough for conference championships 8+ years ago, then we're boned because the team to beat has improved since then.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I would ask you to define what "consistently competing for conference championships" means for you. I think defining it as winning the Coastal every 2-3 years and the ACC every 4-6 would be reasonable. I believe that's attainable with our current recruiting levels as well. If you want to win the Coastal 66%+ of the time and win the ACC 33%+ of the time, I'd agree we're going to need much better recruiting. However, I don't know that I find that to be particularly realistic as that's the rate we won the ACC under Beamer when the conference had no top 10 programs. Presently Clemson is consistently one of the top 2 programs in country.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

I'd like to see improvement, but we'll need to see results on the field. If we're patient, I think we will.

So, is it fair to compare recruiting ranking with polls ranking over a 3-5 year time frame to get an indicator of coaching performance? Shouldn't good coaching be able to exceed their recruiting ranking with the on-field product and related poll ranking.

I think we'd all like recruiting to continue to improve. But I think the mid 20s with good coaching and talent development could easily win the coastal every year. Given the posts above about the Pac 12 and Sec recruiting in the most talent rich states, I'm not so sure we can expect our recruiting to miraculously jump to the teens or anything, nor do I think it's required for us to compete for the ACC. Consistently in the playoffs, of course. But not for a coastal crown. Perhaps I have a bit too realistic view of Techs ceiling than I should, being a fan and all.

Edit: and I type slow on my phone, so I'll drink.

Seems helpful for us to have an ACC that isn't recruiting with the best in the county across the board. For one thing, with a region packed full of other ACC schools, that would make our recruiting battles that much more difficult. Plus our schedule would feature a lot more talent going against us.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to have a cupcake schedule every year but I do want a balance of easier teams and tough ones. Put us in a top-heavy conference that allows us to play some of the top teams in the country every year (Providing good SOS) with a few easier opponents mixed throughout and I'm happy.

I mean, I never really hopped off the #VT4SEC train if I'm being honest

21st century QBs Undefeated vs UVA:
MV7, MV5, LT3, Josh Jackson, Jerod Evans, Michael Brewer, Tyrod Taylor, Sean Glennon, and Grant Noel. That's right, UVA. You couldn't beat Grant Noel.

Staying in the ACC is more than just a football decision. One example is the relationship Wake Forest and VT has with their respective biomedical engineering departments.

While I'm not sure why being in one athletic conference or another should restrict a university from creating and retaining academic partnerships with certain other universities... I agree with your overall premise that conference affiliation is more than just a football decision. A move to the SEC would probably benefit football slightly at the expense of just about every other sport, and I don't think that tradeoff is worth it.

It would benefit Blacksburg for sure. We would get a lot more visiting fans from SCAR, UGA and Tenn than we do from any of our current matchups. It would more than just slightly benefit football

An SEC schedule would also rarely have trouble selling out. Great for both getting away fans to Blacksburg and gives students fun away games they will actually want to attend.

Would also be at least neutral if not positive for baseball, track and swimming. Hard to say for softball and golf. Would be negative for basketball, lacrosse and soccer.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Looking at the team list, it appears we need to aim for the top 15 if we want to have a chance at competing for a playoff.