Update: Here are the latest 2012 college football recruiting rankings.
Having a big class with a lot of athletes is one thing, but which 2012 programs are setting themselves up best for future championships by recruiting efficiently?
Jan 20, 2012 - What is this? This is an index showing how many high school recruits are committed to a school, not including kickers and punters (see below), and what percentage of those recruits are rated four-stars or higher. The data comes from the four major recruiting services (247 Sports, Rivals, Scout and ESPN).
Why does this matter? Recruits are rated by the four major recruiting services on a on a scale of one to five stars. The facts have shown that recruits rated as five stars are much more likely to be top players than the recruits rated as four stars, and so on. The stars-don't-matter argument is for holdouts in the face of the mountain of data compiled on the subject. If you want to get deeper into the data, please see: Why Stars Matter, Do Recruiting Rankings Matter?, and What's a five-star really worth?
Recruiting rankings are not a guarantee of success. But a team that recruits poorly is pretty much guaranteed not to have sustained success unless its rivals are really poorly coached, its schedule is much easier than the rest of the country, or both. Recruiting well is necessary, but not sufficient.
| Team | Conf | # | % Rated 4+ stars |
| Florida State | ACC | 12 | 85% |
| Florida | SEC | 16 | 77% |
| Texas | BIG XII | 21 | 76% |
| USC | Pac-12 | 10 | 75% |
| Alabama | SEC | 24 | 64% |
| Oklahoma | BIG XII | 15 | 60% |
| Auburn | SEC | 16 | 59% |
| Notre Dame | Ind | 17 | 56% |
| Ohio State | Big Ten | 20 | 55% |
| Georgia | SEC | 14 | 52% |
| Michigan | Big Ten | 24 | 48% |
| Wisconsin | Big Ten | 12 | 48% |
| Texas A&M | SEC | 20 | 48% |
| Clemson | ACC | 17 | 47% |
| LSU | SEC | 19 | 46% |
| Cal | Pac-12 | 16 | 45% |
| Stanford | Pac-12 | 17 | 44% |
| Tennessee | SEC | 16 | 42% |
| Oregon | Pac-12 | 17 | 41% |
| Nebraska | Big Ten | 9 | 39% |
| South Carolina | SEC | 22 | 36% |
| Miami | ACC | 28 | 33% |
| Penn State | Big Ten | 14 | 29% |
| TCU | BIG XII | 15 | 28% |
| Iowa | Big Ten | 14 | 27% |
| Texas Tech | BIG XII | 15 | 22% |
| Rutgers | Big East | 14 | 21% |
| Baylor | BIG XII | 18 | 21% |
| Mississippi | SEC | 10 | 20% |
| Arkansas | SEC | 20 | 19% |
| Virginia | ACC | 24 | 19% |
| UCLA | Pac-12 | 26 | 18% |
| Pittsburgh | Big East | 17 | 18% |
| Vanderbilt | SEC | 19 | 14% |
| Oklahoma State | BIG XII | 14 | 14% |
| Michigan State | Big Ten | 14 | 14% |
| Louisville | Big East | 20 | 14% |
| Virginia Tech | ACC | 26 | 13% |
| Missouri | SEC | 16 | 13% |
| Maryland | ACC | 21 | 12% |
| Georgia Tech | ACC | 15 | 12% |
| Mississippi State | SEC | 20 | 11% |
| Washington | Pac-12 | 18 | 11% |
| Utah | Pac-12 | 19 | 11% |
| Oregon State | Pac-12 | 20 | 10% |
| West Virginia | BIG XII | 27 | 8% |
| Arizona | Pac-12 | 14 | 7% |
| N.C. State | ACC | 20 | 6% |
| Cincinnati | Big East | 31 | 4% |
| Purdue | Big Ten | 21 | 4% |
| Updated January 19th, 2011 | |||
| For the full data set, see this Google doc | |||
Why show this as a percentage? Why not just count them up and say that the team with the most wins? In the old days, this would have been a great idea. In modern day college football, however, it doesn't work that way. Teams are limited to rosters of 85 scholarships. If a team gives a scholarship to a two- or three-star player, that is a scholarship that cannot be allocated to a four- or five-star player, either in the current recruiting cycle or in a future recruiting cycle.
Having ten four-star recruits is impressive, but much less so if the class also includes 20+ commitments rated three stars or fewer. Sure, a team could just cut all of the longshots that don't work out, but all but a very few teams are unwilling to trim all the fat every year. It should be noted that two of the most aggressive practitioners of oversigning played in the BCS National Championship Game this year, but this column is about rankings, not ethics, and that is a topic for another day.
Why aren't kickers or punters included? While they are technically eligible to be rated as four-stars or better, in practice, this never happens. We only want to look at recruits who are actually and practically eligible to receive the rating we are measuring.
Why aren't junior college and prep school recruits included? Some services don't bother to rate them at all, and among the services that do rate them, the number and method varies wildly. Certainly, JUCO prospects can make an enormous impact on the game. Some teams even make a living on JUCO recruits. Heck, Auburn won the national title with two JUCOs and a bunch of role players. But we want to compare like things, using as much data as possible. Looking only at high school recruits allows us to do just that.
Why wasn't my team included? Only the top 50 scoring teams were included. If your team isn't any good, this is likely why. If your team is good and didn't make the list, it probably plays a cakewalk schedule and snatches up a lot of talented recruits who are downgraded by the major recruiting services because they couldn't make it in academically to the vast majority of schools on the list.
"There's no way Florida State has the best class in the country!" I agree.
Total numbers matter as well, and FSU has only 12 commitments from non-kicker/punter high school players. Still, the 'Noles are making sure they don't take a bunch of lesser-talented players that would eat up roster spots for when FSU wants to take a bigger class (next cycle).
Who has the best class of high schoolers? Texas. And I don't think it's all that close at this point. The Longhorns are bringing in 21 non-kicker/punter high school commitments, and a very impressive 16 of them are rated four-stars or better! The Longhorns are showing that it is very possible to take a big class without sacrificing quality. It doesn't hurt to have unlimited resources and be the flagship university of one of the most talent-rich states in the country.
Which schools have a chance to end up with a better crop of high school recruits than Texas?
The Florida Gators (16 at 77 percent), Alabama Crimson Tide (24 at 64 percent), Auburn Tigers (16 at 59 percent) and Ohio State Buckeyes (20 at 55) are the prime candidates. Look for Auburn and Florida here, as both are still in the running to land a number of top prospects between now and National Signing Day (February 1st).
Two Big XII BCS Winners Aren't Doing So Hot. Fresh off a Orange Bowl win in which the Mountaineers scored 70 points against Clemson, you'd think their recruiting would heat up. You'd be wrong.
West Virginia is taking in a huge class (27 non-kicker/punter high schoolers) that is lacking in talent (only 8 percent are rated four-stars or better). Oklahoma State is bringing in 14 non-kicker/punter high schoolers, and only two of those are rated four-stars or better. Fans of the Mountaineers and Cowboys would like to see better recruiting out of these two.
Will West Virginia struggle to win the BIG XII if it doesn't increase its talent level? Probably. But Mountaineer fans shouldn't panic. WVU does a great job of getting academically questionable recruits into school. They're probably the BCS-conference team that does this the best.
And Oklahoma State fans shouldn't worry that much, either. OK State is one of the teams that consistently brings in top talent from the junior college ranks.
Still, Texas and Oklahoma are bringing in much better talent and should quickly return to the top of the conference.
With Two Notable Exceptions, The ACC Is The SEC's Little Brother. It wasn't like this a half-decade ago. But the SEC got smart and realized it could leverage its immense resources into better facilities, coaches, and so forth. Recruits care about all of that stuff, and it shows. Seven of the top nine recruiting classes between these two conferences belong to the SEC. Only Florida State and Clemson are recruiting at the level of a SEC champion. These two conferences share much of the same geographic footprint, meaning that most ACC schools get the scraps after the SEC picks.
It would really help the ACC if Miami could recruit at an elite level, but the 'Canes are bringing in a staggering 19 non-kickers rated three-stars or lower. There's a method to the madness, however, as Miami realizes major NCAA sanctions are coming. It needs to load up now with a massive class, even if that class lacks talent, because it won't be able to take a full class for a number of years when the sanctions are handed down. Basically, the 'Canes are recruiting out of an emergency preparedness playbook. As noted in the comment section, this is similar to what Lane Kiffin did at USC last year, while the Trojans appealed their NCAA penalty.
Also, while I'm on the topic of the SEC, Arkansas is not bringing in elite defensive talent. Until that happens, the Razorbacks should not be expected to win the SEC West.
The Big Ten Is Returning To Normal. And that means Ohio State and Michigan are way, way out in front of everyone else. Both are taking big classes (by Big Ten standards), and neither are loading up on filler. Wisconsin is close on a percentage basis, but the Badgers don't have a real shot of maintaining that level of talent as their class increases in size. Penn State sits at 29 percent and is expected to lose one or two of its top recruits by signing day.
The Big Ten has not seen talent like this in some time. Major credit is due to Brady Hoke and Urban Meyer.
See: Ohio State Raiding Rest Of Big Ten and Michigan Aims For Top Offensive Line Class.
Comments, questions, concerns? I'd love to hear them. I'll update this after signing day.
Follow @SBNRecruiting on Twitter
Comments
Re: Miami
Miami is basically following the blueprint Lane Kiffin put forth last year. USC’s penalties were being appealed during the end of recruiting season, so he loaded up on 30 recruits knowing that some kind of reductions were coming. That class had 14 non-kickers rated three stars or lower according to Rivals.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
by Year2 on Jan 20, 2012 11:27 AM EST reply actions
Exactly. A very similar approach.
Follow @SBNRecruiting on Twitter
by Bud Elliott on Jan 20, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
Very nice. After Feb 1st, when everything is finalized, it should be interesting to see the final numbers.
Editor at Alligator Army.
Follow @AA_FlaGators
by FlaGators on Jan 20, 2012 12:47 PM EST reply actions
USC has the smallest class Ive seen
Seriously Turtle, Smoke More Weed
by Mannieblunts on Jan 20, 2012 12:49 PM EST reply actions
Then you should look at Nebraska on the list.
by Ryan Hudson on Jan 20, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Nebraska has a shot to finish strong.
Follow @SBNRecruiting on Twitter
by Bud Elliott on Jan 20, 2012 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
Nice Job Bud.
Kudos to Bud Elliott for not being an all-out Seminole Homer and telling it like it is, giving credit to Tex, Gata, and the others.
by NoleLaw on Jan 20, 2012 2:00 PM EST reply actions
question:
What’s your methodology to determining who’s a four star? Do two services have to agree? Three?
by dth1 on Jan 21, 2012 10:09 AM EST reply actions
It’s the average of the four. If you click the linked google spreadsheet, you’ll see the breakdown by service.
Follow @SBNRecruiting on Twitter
by Bud Elliott on Jan 21, 2012 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
NCAA Football Mathematics 101
Lesson 1) Rating percentages of top tier recruiting classes
Lesson 2) Analyzing the BCS formula and trying to make sense of it
Integrity first. Service before self. Excellence in all you do. -- USAF Core Values
by Disciple of Carolina on Jan 21, 2012 2:52 PM EST reply actions
question is the stars. it is well known that
Many of the rankings give to much weight to Alabama and Texas. So the stars are of limited utility, as are the abOve rankings.
by longboard8 on Jan 22, 2012 11:49 AM EST via mobile reply actions
too much that is.
by longboard8 on Jan 22, 2012 11:53 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Or, Alabama and Texas (among other top tier programs)
Are typically excellent at identifying great prospects early in the recruiting process, and those kids end up being 4 and 5 star kids because they’re pretty good coming out of high school.
by SeminoleSkins87 on Jan 22, 2012 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
This is not true.
Follow @SBNRecruiting on Twitter
by Bud Elliott on Jan 23, 2012 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
You didn't by chance direct this comment at a certain team with a blue home field, did you?
“If your team is good and didn’t make the list, it probably plays a cakewalk schedule and snatches up a lot of talented recruits who are downgraded by the major recruiting services because they couldn’t make it in academically to the vast majority of schools on the list.”
by SeminoleSkins87 on Jan 22, 2012 3:00 PM EST reply actions
What a lot of people don’t realize is this recruiting thing is HIGHLY political. If you’re getting an offer from a Texas or Notre Dame you’re going to get bumped up a star.
The other side to this story is a lot of 4- and 5-star recruits will end up being flashes in the pan. Why? These kids get complacent, get distracted by girls and the adulation and either don’t continue to work out hard to get better or have never really worked out hard to begin with because they relied on natural athletic ability which can take you far in high school, in college the number of good athletes increase exponentially.
Personally I’d rather have 3-star kids who are hard workers, got great atitudes and will do what it takes to get better every day. These are the kinds that end up on All-American lists and/or in the NFL more than those 4 and 5 stars.
by TeaTownCowboy on Jan 23, 2012 12:43 AM EST reply actions
That makes sense, until you look at the numbers.
The numbers say the rankings DO matter, and that generally a five star player is far more likely to become an All-American than a lower rated player. Check this out: Dr. Saturday: Mister Relevant – Why you shouldn’t dismiss recruiting rankings
by tuckwell on Jan 23, 2012 1:18 AM EST up reply actions
You couldn't be more wrong with this comment.
Follow @SBNRecruiting on Twitter
by Bud Elliott on Jan 23, 2012 8:25 AM EST up reply actions
True, more 3* and 2* kids end up in the NFL than 4*+ kids,
However, you must also take into account two factors:
1-Nobody really knows which HS prospects will pan out and which ones won’t at the college level.
2-While there are more 3*-and-under kids who are All-Americans than 4* and 5* kids, there are also over 9x more 4* kids than 5* kids, and there are 6x more 3*-and-below kids than 4* kids. All told, 4* and 5* kids make up less than 15% of BCS rosters, yet they account for more than 45% of the yearly All-American teams.
When we admit that we don’t know who will pan out, it is clear the safest way to go is to play the percentages. And the percentages speak loud and clear: if you want your best shot at a kid who can take your team to the next level, you need to bring in 4* and 5* kids.
"My mistress is pooped, the reds have Oklahoma, and I'm going to bed."
-Hodge Podge, Bloom County
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. "
"In practice, there is."-Yogi Berra
by Dogrel on Jan 23, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed