Louisville with their 2nd 5 star

[swampsting]

Louisville is a fine academic institution ....
compared to ...
Male? Manuel? Pleasure Ridge Park? Trinity?

 

[aeromech]

I know this is supposed to be a jab at Collins but FWIW he has recruited light years better than Satterfield for the last 3 years. This has nothing to do with UL's head coach and all to do with NIL money they are getting. We are not getting NIL support we need and the school, administration, nor athletics department has any control over that.

This is just wrong. You can look this stuff up. Here is the comparison of Collins to Satterfield recruiting rankings for the past 3 years.

...........Collins...........Satterfield
2023......30.....................11
2022......44.....................35
2021......43......................41
2020......28......................44

Collins started off pretty well; but hasn't been able to establish the top 25 recruiting classes we had hoped for. Basically Collins and Satterfield are equivalent recruiters, they certainly aren't light years apart in either direction. It is not that I am all ga-ga over Satterfield; but if the current GT roster is really superior to our rosters of years past 7+ wins this year should be the minimum, not the overly optimistic expectation.

 

[CarsonNewmanJacket]

I know this is supposed to be a jab at Collins but FWIW he has recruited light years better than Satterfield for the last 3 years. This has nothing to do with UL's head coach and all to do with NIL money they are getting. We are not getting NIL support we need and the school, administration, nor athletics department has any control over that.

Other than 2020, Louisville has had a better recruiting class every year that Collins has been here.

 

[jts1207]

This is just wrong. You can look this stuff up. Here is the comparison of Collins to Satterfield recruiting rankings for the past 3 years.

...........Collins...........Satterfield
2023......30.....................11
2022......44.....................35
2021......43......................41
2020......28......................44

Collins started off pretty well; but hasn't been able to establish the top 25 recruiting classes we had hoped for. Basically Collins and Satterfield are equivalent recruiters, they certainly aren't light years apart in either direction. It is not that I am all ga-ga over Satterfield; but if the current GT roster is really superior to our rosters of years past 7+ wins this year should be the minimum, not the overly optimistic expectation.

take out the 23 class with the 5 stars….advantage Collins

 

[aeromech]

take out the 23 class with the 5 stars….advantage Collins

Nope, it goes from 3-1 Satterfield to 2-1 Satterfield. Still there is little difference, both Satterfield and Collins are mediocre recruiters.

 

[CarsonNewmanJacket]

take out the 23 class with the 5 stars….advantage Collins

1) you can’t do math 2) pick and choose classes

 

[GoGATech]

This is just wrong. You can look this stuff up. Here is the comparison of Collins to Satterfield recruiting rankings for the past 3 years.

...........Collins...........Satterfield
2023......30.....................11
2022......44.....................35
2021......43......................41
2020......28......................44

Collins started off pretty well; but hasn't been able to establish the top 25 recruiting classes we had hoped for. Basically Collins and Satterfield are equivalent recruiters, they certainly aren't light years apart in either direction. It is not that I am all ga-ga over Satterfield; but if the current GT roster is really superior to our rosters of years past 7+ wins this year should be the minimum, not the overly optimistic expectation.

Other than 2020, Louisville has had a better recruiting class every year that Collins has been here.

Do you guys even understand how the recruiting rankings work? Rivals is based off of a full class of 20 and 247 weighs them differently as well depending on the number you have in the class. Louisville had a boat load of kids transfer out when Satterfield got hired and have been backfilling classes with low ranked guys so their sheer numbers were putting them near or ahead of us in ratings because we were signing smaller classes than them. Our average star rating on rivals and average player rating per recruit have been higher than UL's every single year since 2019 (when Collins and Satterfield were both hired). Take this for example... here are GT and UL's team talent composite per 247 since 2019 (2022 data isn't out yet but the trend should continue the same direction).

Year	GT Team Ranking	UL Team Ranking	GT Total 4-stars	UL Total 4-stars
2019	45	38	8	12
2020	34	51	13	8
2021	33	60	16	4

So if Louisville is recruiting better or even the same as GT, then how are we moving up in total team talent and they are moving down?

 

[jts1207]

Nope, it goes from 3-1 Satterfield to 2-1 Satterfield. Still there is little difference, both Satterfield and Collins are mediocre recruiters.

Overall net ranking would be Collins during those 3 years

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Do you guys even understand how the recruiting rankings work? Rivals is based off of a full class of 20 and 247 weighs them differently as well depending on the number you have in the class. Louisville had a boat load of kids transfer out when Satterfield got hired and have been backfilling classes with low ranked guys so their sheer numbers were putting them near or ahead of us in ratings because we were signing small classes. Our average star rating on rivals and average player rating per recruit have been higher than UL's every single year since 2019 (when Collins and Satterfield were both hired). Take this for example... here are GT and UL's team talent composite per 247 since 2019 (2022 data isn't out yet but the trend should continue the same direction).

Year	GT Team Ranking	UL Team Ranking	GT Total 4-stars	UL Total 4-stars
2019	45	38	8	12
2020	34	51	13	8
2021	33	60	16	4

So if Louisville is recruiting better or even the same as GT, then how are we moving up in total team talent and they are moving down?

I keep seeing posts like this and I just have to ask: do you think it's wrong for recruiting services to weight classes that way?

I don't, if anything I think they shouldn't stop after 20. Reason being is each star ranking has a statistical probability of being P5 starter quality player. Yeah, 5 stars and 4 stars are great, but statistically, you'll come out ahead with larger numbers of 3* players. I did the research before on the statistics and posted the ratios for this to be true in the past.

 

[GoGATech]

I keep seeing posts like this and I just have to ask: do you think it's wrong for recruiting services to weight classes that way?

I don't, if anything I think they shouldn't stop after 20. Reason being is each star ranking has a statistical probability of being P5 starter quality player. Yeah, 5 stars and 4 stars are great, but statistically, you'll come out ahead with larger numbers of 3* players. I did the research before on the statistics and posted the ratios for this to be true in the past.

It's not the fact that it stops after 20, it's the fact that for Rivals it is cumulative up until 20, not some formula or average. So when you have 16 guys rated higher than their 20, you will still have a lower class, and likely much lower. I don't think having those 4 extra guys makes their class stronger, especially if they are lower rated. Rivals does not factor in transfers yet either.

247 claims their formula helps keep rankings more accurate by not favoring teams that have more commits than others. Their formula is basically an exponential growth curve of all their recruits where the lower rated recruits don't count as much as the higher rated ones. Basically your top recruit contributes 100% of his rating towards your score, and your lowest recruit is only contributing a fraction of his rating toward your total score. The top third of your class attributes the majority of the points to the class, the middle third contributes some points, and the bottom third very few. Let's look at 2021. UL's composite rank was #40 with 26 HS signees, GT's was #47 with 16. Four of their guys did not even receive a rating, so you may as well say they are only counting 22 players. GT's top 13 players were all rated higher than their top 13. Our last 3 players are ranked nearly the same as their last 3 ranked players (still above the 4 not ranked). So they basically have 6 extra guys in there with an .84-.85 rating that we don't which take spots 14-19 for them. So you mean to tell me that with our top 13 being higher than their top 13, them having 6 extra around the mid-bottom of their class makes them rank 7 spots better than us? Lets also look at how 247 claims the "thirds" make up the class raking.

Top third avg -- GT=0.8888/UL=0.8732
Mid third avg -- GT=0.8663/UL=0.8543
Bot third avg -- GT=0.8372/UL=0.8370

You can't even really average UL's because of the unranked guys. This number is not counting the zeros for those guys at the bottom of their class. If you add those in, it makes their bottom third avg = 0.4650. 247 also has an overall rank that includes transfers, and I'm not sure how those get weighted, but it's not nearly as much as the incoming HS signees. We were having to take more transfers to fill needs and while they did help the class average, counting them the same as signees would've helped more. Not sure why they weigh transfers differently when they have a rating.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

It's not the fact that it stops after 20, it's the fact that for Rivals it is cumulative up until 20, not some formula or average. So when you have 16 guys rated higher than their 20, you will still have a lower class, and likely much lower. I don't think having those 4 extra guys makes their class stronger, especially if they are lower rated. Rivals does not factor in transfers yet either.

247 claims their formula helps keep rankings more accurate by not favoring teams that have more commits than others. Their formula is basically an exponential growth curve of all their recruits where the lower rated recruits don't count as much as the higher rated ones. Basically your top recruit contributes 100% of his rating towards your score, and your lowest recruit is only contributing a fraction of his rating toward your total score. The top third of your class attributes the majority of the points to the class, the middle third contributes some points, and the bottom third very few. Let's look at 2021. UL's composite rank was #40 with 26 HS signees, GT's was #47 with 16. Four of their guys did not even receive a rating, so you may as well say they are only counting 22 players. GT's top 13 players were all rated higher than their top 13. Our last 3 players are ranked nearly the same as their last 3 ranked players (still above the 4 not ranked). So they basically have 6 extra guys in there with an .84-.85 rating that we don't which take spots 14-19 for them. So you mean to tell me that with our top 13 being higher than their top 13, them having 6 extra around the mid-bottom of their class makes them rank 7 spots better than us? Lets also look at how 247 claims the "thirds" make up the class raking.

Top third avg -- GT=0.8888/UL=0.8732
Mid third avg -- GT=0.8663/UL=0.8543
Bot third avg -- GT=0.8372/UL=0.8370

You can't even really average UL's because of the unranked guys. This number is not counting the zeros for those guys at the bottom of their class. If you add those in, it makes their bottom third avg = 0.4650. 247 also has an overall rank that includes transfers, and I'm not sure how those get weighted, but it's not nearly as much as the incoming HS signees. We were having to take more transfers to fill needs and while they did help the class average, counting them the same as signees would've helped more. Not sure why they weigh transfers differently when they have a rating.

Ok, but I do think the 4 extra guys are worth a lot.

Let's say the following probabilities of P5 starter quality player exist (there's a thread on here somewhere where actual #s were pulled):
5* - 0.9
4* - 0.6
3* - 0.3
2* or lower - 0.1

GT's 2021 class breakdown: 0, 4, 10, 2
GT Expected quality players = 5.6
UL's breakdown: 0, 0, 19, 4
UL EQP = 6.1

 

[GoGATech]

Ok, but I do think the 4 extra guys are worth a lot.

Let's say the following probabilities of P5 starter quality player exist (there's a thread on here somewhere where actual #s were pulled):
5* - 0.9
4* - 0.6
3* - 0.3
2* or lower - 0.1

GT's 2021 class breakdown: 0, 4, 10, 2
GT Expected quality players = 5.6
UL's breakdown: 0, 0, 19, 4
UL EQP = 6.1

Thing is, you can't just break it down as generic as 5*, 4*, 3*, etc. There is a huge difference in a 5.5 3 star and a 5.7 3 star. Over 1/3 of those 19 3*'s UL has are 5.5's. Point being we could've easily signed 4 more 5.5 HS guys if we had room and didn't need to use those spots for transfers. If we did, that would've upped our team ranking to 1500 points, tied for 28th place, ahead of UL. I don't think backfilling with 4 extra 5.5 guys would have made our class any stronger. That's why I think the rankings system is flawed. Like I said before also, how can the yearly recruiting rankings be accurate when the team talent composite for UL is steadily declining year by year while ours is steadily rising?

 

[OptionJacket]

Who cares. The real issue is that the guy we hired can not coach a team to positive outcomes in college football. Recruiting only matters if you can coach. Our guy can’t. And as a reminder- we are entering year 4. 4!!!!

 

[GoGATech]

And the reason the exponential growth curve 247 uses doesn't work is because of this. Take our 2 classes for instance. Their #1 recruit and our #1 recruit will both count for 100% of thier ranking, and vice-versa both of our lowest recruits will count only for a minute fraction of our ranking. Well having more players means their #2 will count more towards their ranking than our #2 will. Their methodology and explanation is that your higher ranked recruits will account for more team production than lower ranked ones, so they should count more towards the class, which I agree with. But when they have more recruits, that means once you get past the top recruit, the next few will count more towards their ranking than ours will, even if ours are higher rated. Their #2 man may get 80% credit for his score while ours only gets 70% for his, even though he may be higher ranked than UL's #2 and account for more team production for us. That makes their system flawed as well.

 

[GoGATech]

Who cares. The real issue is that the guy we hired can not coach a team to positive outcomes in college football. Recruiting only matters if you can coach. Our guy can’t. And as a reminder- we are entering year 4. 4!!!!

Apparently the ones talking about it do, because this is a recruiting thread. If you want to bitch about coaching, do it in the other 4,327 threads that get douched up by folks like you.

 

[OmnipoTech]

Thing is, you can't just break it down as generic as 5*, 4*, 3*, etc. There is a huge difference in a 5.5 3 star and a 5.7 3 star. Over 1/3 of those 19 3*'s UL has are 5.5's. Point being we could've easily signed 4 more 5.5 HS guys if we had room and didn't need to use those spots for transfers. If we did, that would've upped our team ranking to 1500 points, tied for 28th place, ahead of UL. I don't think backfilling with 4 extra 5.5 guys would have made our class any stronger. That's why I think the rankings system is flawed. Like I said before also, how can the yearly recruiting rankings be accurate when the team talent composite for UL is steadily declining year by year while ours is steadily rising?

I think taking recruiting rankings or team talent rankings as having any significant value for comparison is a waste. How many of the 5.5 guys are truly being evaluated vs having the default lowest number thrown out or looking at their offer list and going "hmm yea that seems about right"? We've signed lowly rated recruits before that ended up being significant contributors if not downright studs, so to just dismiss those extra guys because they were likely given a default rating and not actually evaluated seems pretty foolish.

 

[GoGATech]

I think taking recruiting rankings or team talent rankings as having any significant value for comparison is a waste. How many of the 5.5 guys are truly being evaluated vs having the default lowest number thrown out or looking at their offer list and going "hmm yea that seems about right"? We've signed lowly rated recruits before that ended up being significant contributors if not downright studs, so to just dismiss those extra guys because they were likely given a default rating and not actually evaluated seems pretty foolish.

I didn't dismiss them. I said you can't count them as much as a 5.7. Sure many 5.5's turn out to be good players but more 5.7's do.

 

[aeromech]

Do you guys even understand how the recruiting rankings work? Rivals is based off of a full class of 20 and 247 weighs them differently as well depending on the number you have in the class. Louisville had a boat load of kids transfer out when Satterfield got hired and have been backfilling classes with low ranked guys so their sheer numbers were putting them near or ahead of us in ratings because we were signing smaller classes than them. Our average star rating on rivals and average player rating per recruit have been higher than UL's every single year since 2019 (when Collins and Satterfield were both hired). Take this for example... here are GT and UL's team talent composite per 247 since 2019 (2022 data isn't out yet but the trend should continue the same direction).

Year	GT Team Ranking	UL Team Ranking	GT Total 4-stars	UL Total 4-stars
2019	45	38	8	12
2020	34	51	13	8
2021	33	60	16	4

So if Louisville is recruiting better or even the same as GT, then how are we moving up in total team talent and they are moving down?

I understand how recruiting rankings work. You look up the ranking of the recruiting class, which is what I did. If you want to move the goal posts and talk about how many 4-stars are now on the roster fine; but that is a different discussion.

 

[OmnipoTech]

I didn't dismiss them. I said you can't count them as much as a 5.7. Sure many 5.5's turn out to be good players but more 5.7's do.

I was referring to this statement:

I don't think backfilling with 4 extra 5.5 guys would have made our class any stronger.

That seems to suggest those 4 extra guys have no added value to you, which would be dismissing their potential contributions.

 

[GoGATech]

I understand how recruiting rankings work. You look up the ranking of the recruiting class, which is what I did. If you want to move the goal posts and talk about how many 4-stars are now on the roster fine; but that is a different discussion.

Way to cherry pick one tiny part of my post and say I moved the goalposts. I was using the number of 4*'s per year to emphasize the trend of recruiting for each school. We have more 3*'s than them too if you want to look at that. UL ranged from 57-63 3*s throughout that period and we ranged from 67-70 3*s. So obviously our jump in total talent composite wasn't just because of the 4*s, we were getting better 3* players each year also. If you read the whole post and my subsequent ones you'll see where I explained how the yearly rankings system is flawed. If it isn't then explain to me how UL is getting better or equal classes than GT but is falling way behind in total talent? That ranking factors everyone on the roster, not just 5*s and 4*s.