National Signing Day 2016 is officially in the rear view mirror. We had our pomp, our circumstance, our Hudl film analysis, our gnashing of teeth about the whims of 18-year-olds and their parents.
While there are always a few surprises in the days or weeks following Signing Day, almost all of the work on the 2016 recruiting class has been done.
For the purposes of my S&P+ projections, I calculate two-year recruiting ratings. Here's how:
- Because these ratings are used for all 128 FBS teams, I've found that a blend of Rivals ratings and the 247Sports Composite tends to work the best. Neither service tends to have ratings for everyone signed by some of the mid-majors, and splitting the difference, so to speak, creates the best correlations (for me) between recruiting success and on-field success.
- I also use a blend of teams' point totals (which are how the recruiting services determine their overall class rankings) and per-recruit averages. Recruiting services tend to have a cutoff, so that teams signing 32 guys don't end up getting a significant advantage over teams that sign 23, but I've found that incorporating averages still suit my purposes better.
- These two services and two data points are whirred together to create a percentile average for each school in each class. For 2016, for instance, No. 1 Alabama's percentile average was 98.7 percent, No. 64 Kansas State's was 46.0, and No. 128 Kent State's was 7.8. That gives you an idea of the range.
- Average the last two classes together, and voila! Two-year averages. You can do the same for five-year averages.
Here are teams' 2016 ratings, five- and two-year percentile averages and rankings changes.
Team | 2016 class | Rk | 5-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 5-year Rk |
2-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 2-year Rk |
Alabama | 98.7% | 1 | 98.2% | 1 | 0 | 97.3% | 1 | 0 |
Ohio State | 97.9% | 2 | 95.5% | 4 | 0 | 93.5% | 5 | 4 |
USC | 97.7% | 3 | 97.5% | 2 | 0 | 96.4% | 2 | 0 |
Georgia | 97.7% | 4 | 94.0% | 6 | 0 | 92.8% | 7 | 3 |
Florida State | 97.7% | 5 | 96.3% | 3 | 0 | 96.3% | 3 | 0 |
Auburn | 96.7% | 6 | 94.9% | 5 | 2 | 94.2% | 4 | 1 |
LSU | 96.6% | 7 | 93.9% | 7 | -2 | 92.5% | 8 | -1 |
Clemson | 96.3% | 8 | 91.6% | 14 | 0 | 92.9% | 6 | 6 |
Ole Miss | 96.2% | 9 | 85.9% | 20 | 1 | 89.0% | 15 | 6 |
Michigan | 95.5% | 10 | 92.9% | 9 | 2 | 89.1% | 14 | 0 |
Texas | 94.4% | 11 | 92.4% | 11 | -2 | 91.3% | 12 | 3 |
Tennessee | 94.3% | 12 | 90.4% | 15 | -2 | 92.4% | 9 | -3 |
Notre Dame | 93.9% | 13 | 93.8% | 8 | 2 | 92.0% | 10 | 1 |
Texas A&M | 92.6% | 14 | 92.5% | 10 | 8 | 90.2% | 13 | -5 |
Michigan State | 92.5% | 15 | 83.9% | 21 | 3 | 88.0% | 18 | 4 |
Florida | 91.0% | 16 | 92.3% | 12 | -4 | 86.3% | 20 | -7 |
Baylor | 91.0% | 17 | 74.9% | 30 | 9 | 79.9% | 27 | 5 |
Miami | 89.8% | 18 | 88.6% | 17 | 2 | 86.0% | 21 | -2 |
UCLA | 89.7% | 19 | 92.2% | 13 | 3 | 91.7% | 11 | -7 |
Oklahoma | 89.3% | 20 | 88.7% | 16 | -4 | 88.8% | 16 | 0 |
Penn State | 89.2% | 21 | 79.5% | 26 | 1 | 88.1% | 17 | 3 |
Oregon | 87.5% | 22 | 87.3% | 19 | -2 | 86.5% | 19 | 4 |
Arizona State | 87.2% | 23 | 77.6% | 28 | 7 | 84.9% | 22 | 2 |
TCU | 87.1% | 24 | 72.0% | 35 | 3 | 77.1% | 31 | 18 |
Mississippi State | 86.5% | 25 | 77.9% | 27 | 2 | 82.8% | 23 | 6 |
Team | 2016 class | Rk | 5-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 5-year Rk |
2-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 2-year Rk |
Stanford | 83.8% | 26 | 88.3% | 18 | -3 | 82.3% | 24 | -7 |
Nebraska | 83.1% | 27 | 79.9% | 24 | -1 | 78.9% | 29 | 1 |
Washington | 83.0% | 28 | 77.5% | 29 | -3 | 78.2% | 30 | 4 |
Arkansas | 81.7% | 29 | 73.8% | 31 | 2 | 81.0% | 25 | 3 |
North Carolina | 78.6% | 30 | 80.6% | 23 | -1 | 80.2% | 26 | -1 |
Pittsburgh | 78.5% | 31 | 71.9% | 37 | 9 | 71.9% | 35 | 7 |
Duke | 77.9% | 32 | 61.4% | 52 | 4 | 71.5% | 37 | 7 |
South Carolina | 77.3% | 33 | 83.5% | 22 | -2 | 79.4% | 28 | -10 |
Wisconsin | 76.5% | 34 | 72.9% | 34 | 2 | 73.9% | 33 | 2 |
Kentucky | 73.8% | 35 | 73.8% | 32 | -1 | 71.9% | 36 | -9 |
Virginia Tech | 71.1% | 36 | 79.8% | 25 | 0 | 75.0% | 32 | -6 |
California | 70.3% | 37 | 72.0% | 36 | -8 | 71.1% | 38 | 8 |
Oklahoma State | 70.2% | 38 | 71.7% | 38 | -6 | 68.7% | 40 | -7 |
Houston | 69.3% | 39 | 47.3% | 68 | 3 | 51.3% | 61 | 18 |
Missouri | 68.6% | 40 | 73.0% | 33 | -3 | 73.6% | 34 | -3 |
Texas Tech | 68.2% | 41 | 66.4% | 42 | -1 | 66.7% | 41 | 6 |
Northwestern | 67.5% | 42 | 66.3% | 43 | 1 | 64.2% | 46 | -6 |
Louisville | 67.3% | 43 | 69.7% | 39 | -5 | 69.1% | 39 | 6 |
Arizona | 66.2% | 44 | 65.3% | 44 | 5 | 64.4% | 44 | -3 |
Iowa | 65.8% | 45 | 61.9% | 51 | -1 | 60.9% | 49 | 7 |
Utah | 65.7% | 46 | 65.0% | 46 | -1 | 64.6% | 43 | 8 |
Oregon State | 65.5% | 47 | 59.4% | 54 | -1 | 57.6% | 52 | 11 |
South Florida | 63.0% | 48 | 63.4% | 49 | 3 | 57.4% | 54 | -4 |
NC State | 61.4% | 49 | 64.0% | 47 | 4 | 64.3% | 45 | -6 |
Maryland | 61.1% | 50 | 67.1% | 41 | 2 | 62.5% | 47 | -11 |
Team | 2016 class | Rk | 5-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 5-year Rk |
2-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 2-year Rk |
Colorado | 60.3% | 51 | 55.3% | 56 | 2 | 59.3% | 50 | 11 |
Minnesota | 59.4% | 52 | 52.6% | 58 | 7 | 57.5% | 53 | 6 |
Syracuse | 56.7% | 53 | 50.8% | 63 | 5 | 51.7% | 59 | 1 |
West Virginia | 56.6% | 54 | 63.2% | 50 | -3 | 65.1% | 42 | -4 |
Georgia Tech | 55.5% | 55 | 65.1% | 45 | -3 | 62.2% | 48 | -11 |
Wake Forest | 55.4% | 56 | 51.5% | 62 | 1 | 53.0% | 58 | 7 |
Washington State | 54.4% | 57 | 55.0% | 57 | 5 | 55.8% | 56 | -1 |
BYU | 53.1% | 58 | 46.8% | 70 | 0 | 47.0% | 66 | 4 |
Rutgers | 51.8% | 59 | 60.0% | 53 | -5 | 51.6% | 60 | 4 |
Vanderbilt | 51.4% | 60 | 67.8% | 40 | 0 | 58.8% | 51 | -3 |
Central Florida | 50.6% | 61 | 52.0% | 59 | 0 | 55.3% | 57 | -5 |
Indiana | 50.4% | 62 | 56.9% | 55 | 0 | 56.4% | 55 | -1 |
Iowa State | 48.3% | 63 | 48.9% | 65 | 1 | 46.1% | 68 | -1 |
Kansas State | 46.0% | 64 | 51.7% | 61 | -1 | 50.8% | 63 | -5 |
Virginia | 44.6% | 65 | 63.9% | 48 | -11 | 51.1% | 62 | -19 |
Boston College | 42.7% | 66 | 48.2% | 66 | -2 | 50.2% | 64 | -11 |
Temple | 42.6% | 67 | 34.6% | 73 | 6 | 42.7% | 69 | 2 |
Boise State | 42.3% | 68 | 47.1% | 69 | 0 | 49.1% | 65 | -3 |
Memphis | 40.1% | 69 | 25.7% | 88 | 1 | 35.0% | 74 | 11 |
Cincinnati | 39.7% | 70 | 49.7% | 64 | -7 | 42.5% | 70 | -2 |
Colorado State | 36.3% | 71 | 26.0% | 86 | 1 | 33.5% | 76 | 13 |
Illinois | 34.1% | 72 | 51.9% | 60 | -6 | 46.2% | 67 | -10 |
Western Michigan | 33.2% | 73 | 27.5% | 83 | 2 | 33.1% | 78 | -5 |
UNLV | 30.2% | 74 | 22.5% | 95 | 10 | 27.7% | 86 | 22 |
East Carolina | 29.3% | 75 | 32.0% | 75 | 0 | 35.2% | 73 | 3 |
Team | 2016 class | Rk | 5-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 5-year Rk |
2-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 2-year Rk |
San Diego State | 29.0% | 76 | 32.8% | 74 | 0 | 32.8% | 79 | -5 |
Kansas | 28.6% | 77 | 42.6% | 71 | -4 | 33.4% | 77 | -8 |
Marshall | 28.5% | 78 | 37.9% | 72 | 0 | 34.3% | 75 | -3 |
SMU | 28.4% | 79 | 31.6% | 76 | -3 | 30.3% | 82 | 4 |
Fresno State | 27.5% | 80 | 30.7% | 78 | 4 | 35.5% | 72 | 3 |
Purdue | 27.3% | 81 | 47.7% | 67 | -6 | 35.6% | 71 | -5 |
Connecticut | 27.0% | 82 | 30.7% | 77 | 0 | 28.6% | 83 | 7 |
Florida Atlantic | 26.7% | 83 | 25.8% | 87 | 7 | 32.2% | 81 | 1 |
Southern Miss | 26.5% | 84 | 27.5% | 82 | 2 | 26.9% | 88 | 10 |
Central Michigan | 25.7% | 85 | 21.4% | 101 | 5 | 25.6% | 91 | 19 |
Western Kentucky | 25.5% | 86 | 25.1% | 89 | 1 | 25.4% | 92 | 1 |
San Jose State | 24.5% | 87 | 24.6% | 90 | 5 | 32.3% | 80 | -3 |
Miami (Ohio) | 23.2% | 88 | 20.2% | 105 | 4 | 25.7% | 90 | 24 |
Toledo | 22.9% | 89 | 27.3% | 84 | -4 | 27.6% | 87 | 0 |
Arkansas State | 22.7% | 90 | 27.3% | 85 | 1 | 27.8% | 85 | 3 |
Louisiana Tech | 22.6% | 91 | 28.2% | 81 | 0 | 28.6% | 84 | -4 |
Tulsa | 22.6% | 92 | 30.5% | 79 | -3 | 26.0% | 89 | -6 |
Hawaii | 21.8% | 93 | 21.4% | 100 | 2 | 21.9% | 102 | 16 |
Massachusetts | 21.7% | 94 | 16.2% | 116 | 11 | 22.0% | 101 | 14 |
New Mexico | 21.3% | 95 | 20.4% | 104 | -3 | 20.8% | 106 | 7 |
Middle Tennessee | 21.2% | 96 | 21.3% | 102 | -3 | 24.8% | 93 | 1 |
Georgia Southern | 20.7% | 97 | 19.8% | 106 | -2 | 24.2% | 95 | -11 |
Bowling Green | 19.8% | 98 | 22.4% | 97 | -1 | 21.8% | 103 | -3 |
UTSA | 19.8% | 99 | 23.0% | 94 | -3 | 22.5% | 98 | 13 |
Nevada | 19.2% | 100 | 23.1% | 93 | 5 | 22.9% | 96 | 0 |
Team | 2016 class | Rk | 5-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 5-year Rk |
2-year avg (2016) |
Rk | Change in 2-year Rk |
Troy | 19.0% | 101 | 18.0% | 110 | 3 | 20.5% | 107 | 10 |
South Alabama | 18.7% | 102 | 20.5% | 103 | -3 | 22.6% | 97 | 10 |
Tulane | 18.4% | 103 | 29.1% | 80 | -2 | 24.6% | 94 | -13 |
North Texas | 18.1% | 104 | 18.2% | 109 | 2 | 22.3% | 99 | 10 |
Buffalo | 17.7% | 105 | 16.3% | 114 | 4 | 19.3% | 114 | -10 |
Ball State | 16.5% | 106 | 18.5% | 108 | 2 | 19.8% | 111 | -5 |
Texas State | 15.9% | 107 | 23.7% | 92 | -4 | 20.4% | 109 | -8 |
Navy | 15.9% | 108 | 22.4% | 96 | 1 | 19.9% | 110 | -32 |
UTEP | 14.7% | 109 | 13.8% | 125 | 1 | 15.8% | 122 | 6 |
UL-Lafayette | 14.6% | 110 | 21.4% | 99 | -6 | 20.5% | 108 | -5 |
Florida International | 14.5% | 111 | 22.1% | 98 | -6 | 21.4% | 105 | -3 |
Utah State | 13.3% | 112 | 19.0% | 107 | -4 | 21.7% | 104 | 1 |
Appalachian State | 13.0% | 113 | 16.8% | 113 | 4 | 18.4% | 115 | -18 |
Eastern Michigan | 12.8% | 114 | 15.2% | 119 | 0 | 16.0% | 120 | 3 |
Rice | 12.5% | 115 | 24.5% | 91 | -8 | 19.5% | 112 | -20 |
Old Dominion | 12.0% | 116 | 15.0% | 120 | 2 | 19.4% | 113 | -22 |
Air Force | 11.7% | 117 | 15.0% | 121 | 0 | 14.5% | 125 | -1 |
Georgia State | 11.5% | 118 | 10.9% | 129 | 0 | 15.9% | 121 | 1 |
Northern Illinois | 11.4% | 119 | 14.7% | 122 | -6 | 17.0% | 117 | 3 |
UL-Monroe | 11.1% | 120 | 14.6% | 123 | 0 | 16.9% | 118 | 1 |
Charlotte | 10.9% | 121 | 16.8% | 112 | -4 | 22.3% | 100 | -5 |
Ohio | 10.4% | 122 | 17.7% | 111 | -4 | 16.8% | 119 | -7 |
Wyoming | 10.1% | 123 | 15.9% | 117 | -5 | 17.3% | 116 | 0 |
Akron | 9.7% | 124 | 16.2% | 115 | -1 | 15.5% | 124 | -25 |
New Mexico State | 9.3% | 125 | 15.8% | 118 | -3 | 13.0% | 127 | 0 |
Idaho | 9.0% | 126 | 12.8% | 128 | -4 | 12.9% | 128 | -2 |
Army | 8.9% | 127 | 13.6% | 126 | -1 | 13.7% | 126 | -1 |
Kent State | 7.8% | 128 | 14.5% | 124 | -4 | 15.7% | 123 | -2 |
From a projections standpoint, the most interesting part of this exercise to me is the change in averages from one year to another. That tells us which teams' projections (and, in theory, on-field play) will be most directly affected by recruiting. So, really, what tends to matter most from a projections standpoint is the comparison of a team's 2014 class to its 2016 class.
- Largest positive change in five-year rankings: UMass (+11), UNLV (+10), Baylor (+9), Pittsburgh (+9), Texas A&M (+8), Arizona State (+7), Minnesota (+7), FAU (+7), Temple (+6)
- Largest negative change in five-year rankings: Virginia (-11), Rice (-8), California (-8), Cincinnati (-7), NIU (-6), UL-Lafayette (-6), FIU (-6), Purdue (-6), Oklahoma State (-6)
- Largest positive change in two-year rankings: Miami-OH (+24), UNLV (+22), CMU (+19), TCU (+18), Houston (+18), Hawaii (+16), UMass (+14), Colorado State (+13), UTSA (+13), Colorado (+11), Memphis (+11), Oregon State (+11)
- Largest negative change in two-year rankings: Navy (-32), Akron (-25), Old Dominion (-20), Rice (-19), Virginia (-19), Appalachian State (-18), Tulane (-13), Georgia Tech (-11), Georgia Southern (-11), Boston College (-11), Maryland (-11)
- Five best two-year averages for Group of 5 teams (and BYU): No. 54 USF (57.4%), No. 57 UCF (55.3%), No. 61 Houston (51.3%), No. 65 Boise State (49.1%), No. 66 BYU (47.0%)
- Five worst two-year averages for power conference teams: No. 77 Kansas (33.4%), No. 71 Purdue (35.6%), No. 68 Iowa State (46.1%), No. 67 Illinois (46.2%), No. 64 Boston College (50.2%).
While Texas stole a lot of headlines with its late charge of commitments, the Longhorns basically duplicated 2015's recruiting effort -- they ranked 12th in these percentiles in 2015 and 11th in 2016. That's impressive in its own way because of Texas' lackluster on-field results (5-7 in 2015), but maybe the biggest story from a projections standpoint comes in the efforts of other Texas schools.
Baylor's 2016 class ranks 17th in these percentiles, and the Bears' five-year ranking improved more than any one else in the power conferences. They have been a national player with decent recruiting, and now their recruiting is downright good.
Meanwhile, 2015's most successful on-field mid-major and former mid-major, Houston and TCU, signed wonderful classes. The Cougars' class ranked 39th despite the handicap of mid-major life, while the Horned Frogs ranked 24th, which raised their two-year average considerably. Considering they've gone 23-3 over the last two seasons and their recruiting just improved, there's reason for excitement in Fort Worth.
These numbers are used for my S&P+ projections, which are in turn used for my offseason preview series (which, believe it or not, begins next week). The projections come together using what are basically three factors: recent performance, returning talent and, as a hint of what will be replacing the departed talent, these two-year recruiting rankings.