One of Top Recruiting Classes in Kirk Ferentz Era

[BVHawk95]

Can you elaborate on this? I want to believe you but I refuse to believe on a scale of 100, Iowa is that close to Michigan in recruiting.

Here is 247's rankings for the Big Ten:
https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings?Conference=Big-Ten

My math was off, it's actually 3.2 instead of 2.2, but the difference is still negligible. Granted, Michigan brought in a lower class than usual, but it was still 19th in the country.

My point isn't that we're recruiting at Michigan levels, since they're likely always going to out-recruit us, as will OSU, PSU, and the other bluebloods. But those who think we're being out-recruited by miles are off, since from spots 20 to about 60, you're splitting hairs on how good those players are.

 

[NoBeer]

Here is 247's rankings for the Big Ten:
https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings?Conference=Big-Ten

My math was off, it's actually 3.2 instead of 2.2, but the difference is still negligible. Granted, Michigan brought in a lower class than usual, but it was still 19th in the country.

My point isn't that we're recruiting at Michigan levels, since they're likely always going to out-recruit us, as will OSU, PSU, and the other bluebloods. But those who think we're being out-recruited by miles are off, since from spots 20 to about 60, you're splitting hairs on how good those players are.

I guess I really don't understand how that works. Isn't total points more relevant or is that impacted by number signed, making it apples to oranges? In fact, they have the conference ranked by total points which would lead me to believe that is the relevant number.

Even if the average is relevant (which I'm not convinced) that scale goes from 83-94. As such, Iowa's 85 is much closer to the very bottom than the top and on such a small scale, its not even close.

Further, Iowa is one of only 3 teams that has ZERO 4-star recruits. I know the stars are not an exact science but come on. That's bad.

 

[BVHawk95]

I guess I really don't understand how that works. Isn't total points more relevant or is that impacted by number signed, making it apples to oranges? In fact, they have the conference ranked by total points which would lead me to believe that is the relevant number.

It is impacted by number signed, yes. Two star guys will generally be in the 70s range, if they have a profile at all. Thing is, word of mouth and who's interested also plays a part in rating. For example, just two or so years ago, Bama poached a 3-star TE who was committed to BC, and after he received the offer from them, his rating went up enough to add a star.

To me, placing a numerical value on the potential of a high school athlete is great at identifying the top guys in the country, but doesn't do enough to evaluate intangibles like instincts, work ethic, football IQ, etc. Iowa has shown time and again that there are plenty of diamonds in the rough that, if someone takes a chance on them and offers good enough coaching, they can far outshine their recruiting rating, which is why I won't place total faith in something so objective.

 

[NoBeer]

It is impacted by number signed, yes.

To me, placing a numerical value on the potential of a high school athlete is great at identifying the top guys in the country, but doesn't do enough to evaluate intangibles like instincts, work ethic, football IQ, etc. Iowa has shown time and again that there are plenty of diamonds in the rough that, if someone takes a chance on them and offers good enough coaching, they can far outshine their recruiting rating, which is why I won't place total faith in something so objective.

I don't doubt that it is really difficult to identify guy 50 vs. guy 70 at defensive tackle. I do doubt that Iowa's recruiting class is a hair worse than Michigan's which is what you seem to be implying. And the law of averages works both ways. For every 70 that ends up being a 40 or 50 there's a 70 that shouldn't be on a D1 roster. Across 20-25 guys each year they probably get pretty close.

I get being a fan of a middling program we want to believe that we're not that far back, especially since we usually beat one of the big boys each year. But we're pretty far back. Even Nebraska has a significantly better recruiting class.

I fear we're going to slide down the West if we're going to continue to ride a coach in his 60s. Nebraska is going to back Pelini levels I would wager and its easy to make fun of Fleck but I wouldn't sleep on him. Brohm has me a little worried too.

 

[4thngoal]

I don't doubt that it is really difficult to identify guy 50 vs. guy 70 at defensive tackle. I do doubt that Iowa's recruiting class is a hair worse than Michigan's which is what you seem to be implying. And the law of averages works both ways. For every 70 that ends up being a 40 or 50 there's a 70 that shouldn't be on a D1 roster. Across 20-25 guys each year they probably get pretty close.

I get being a fan of a middling program we want to believe that we're not that far back, especially since we usually beat one of the big boys each year. But we're pretty far back. Even Nebraska has a significantly better recruiting class.

I fear we're going to slide down the West if we're going to continue to ride a coach in his 60s. Nebraska is going to back Pelini levels I would wager and its easy to make fun of Fleck but I wouldn't sleep on him. Brohm has me a little worried too.

This is personal opinion, but stars are just that.
Northwestern excels with just a few really good players at different positions. With no injuries, they have proven they can make some noise.
Let's for the sake of argument say those few players are 4 star. Their class rankings take a pretty good jump. However most of the time they are not.
Now factor in the 4 star players that maybe shouldn't have been 4 star, as was pointed out just offers can do that.
Once you understand that, you can see why even in the draft, some highly taken players don't hold a candle to some taken later.
To see and project is an art, for sure.

 

[NoBeer]

I'm trying to have a genuine dialog but if you're telling me you truly believe there is a enough wiggle room on each individual player that can add up that you sincerely believe our class is just short of Michigan's I don't know what to say. Are you agreeing with the premise that ratings are fallible or actually agreeing with the conclusion that there isn't a significant talent gap between Iowa and Michigan?

I guess I'll repeat that the margin of error goes both ways. Not all of our 3 star players are 3.99s. Some of them are 3.01s or even 2.99s. It averages out over the class of 22ish kids.

 

[BVHawk95]

I'm trying to have a genuine dialog but if you're telling me you truly believe there is a enough wiggle room on each individual player that can add up that you sincerely believe our class is just short of Michigan's I don't know what to say. Are you agreeing with the premise that ratings are fallible or actually agreeing with the conclusion that there isn't a significant talent gap between Iowa and Michigan?

I guess I'll repeat that the margin of error goes both ways. Not all of our 3 star players are 3.99s. Some of them are 3.01s or even 2.99s. It averages out over the class of 22ish kids.

I'm agreeing for the former, though recently you could make an argument for the latter. Somehow, Michgan's offense this season was worse than ours, and their QB play, even with the "QB Whisperer", was miles worse.

The main point of what I'm trying to say is our recruiting is trending upwards, and that, combined with the knack they have for developing under-recruited players is promising.

 

[CP87]

I'm agreeing for the former, though recently you could make an argument for the latter. Somehow, Michgan's offense this season was worse than ours, and their QB play, even with the "QB Whisperer", was miles worse.

The main point of what I'm trying to say is our recruiting is trending upwards, and that, combined with the knack they have for developing under-recruited players is promising.

I truly believe Iowa is getting better players as well, but we should be open to the fact that perhaps the players are not better, maybe they just are not flying under the radar like used to be the case. The quote below is from Leistikow's piece written after signing day:

According to Allen Trieu, the head analyst for Midwest recruiting for 247sports, there’s another reason Iowa is getting more love in the recruiting rankings.

Recruiting services are now able to reach outposts that Iowa often goes to land its prospects. And, as a result, those players get a more complete evaluation.

“We’ve seen most of this class. With the resources that we have available, I was able to go up to Green Bay and see (offensive lineman) Jack Plumb this year. We saw (running back) Henry Geil at a bunch of things,” Trieu says. “That probably didn't happen in the past, and I think that contributed to some of Iowa’s better players being very under-ranked.

“I would say the difference is more the exposure that some of these kids get to the world, more so than it is Iowa’s really changed up how they’ve recruited.”​

 

[4thngoal]

I'm agreeing for the former, though recently you could make an argument for the latter. Somehow, Michgan's offense this season was worse than ours, and their QB play, even with the "QB Whisperer", was miles worse.

The main point of what I'm trying to say is our recruiting is trending upwards, and that, combined with the knack they have for developing under-recruited players is promising.

If one were so inclined to believe or could be convinced that this staff does more with less (just talking stars here), the logical conclusion is that they can do better with more.
Ie: if a 40th ranked class can compete with a top 10 one. What could a 20th ranked one do.
Yes you are going to have misses either way. A margin of error.
That margin is mitigated to some degree if you take all 5 stars. It is also mitigated (pretty much) if you rank outside the top 10. Because at some point the difference is the team above you only is there because you took a two star and they took a 3. The team above them got a 4 star. So basically you could say in a section of class rankings, it came down to one recruit. To put that much stock in one, when it's a team sport...

 

[NoBeer]

The main point of what I'm trying to say is our recruiting is trending upwards, and that, combined with the knack they have for developing under-recruited players is promising.

The last time we had a big uptick after Kirk recovered the program we had a history of our highest recruits being busts. I'm not that optimistic. It usually doesn't work out for me to have high hopes for Iowa sports programs.

Also that Allen Trieu quote concerns me. Iowa isn't recruiting better, we're just getting more credit for our recruits. Which means more of the same.

 

[4thngoal]

The last time we had a big uptick after Kirk recovered the program we had a history of our highest recruits being busts. I'm not that optimistic. It usually doesn't work out for me to have high hopes for Iowa sports programs.

Also that Allen Trieu quote concerns me. Iowa isn't recruiting better, we're just getting more credit for our recruits. Which means more of the same.

By that logic, then one would also have to say that Brandon Smith and many others that didn't get as complete of a scouting, we're indeed ranked lower than they should have been. Meaning our classes were better than the rankings would show.
Which concludes with, they are mostly inaccurate except for pretty much the top 10.
I would agree that some of the better classes have underperformed. Which is another way of saying, in large part, the class rankings don't mean squat. I am not talking extremely highly ranked ones.
Look our team beat OSU, who is far above us in class rankings and got beat by Purdue.
Everyone wants to say how Nebraska has been recruiting just about better than all the West teams, but it didn't mean squat. That's why we play the games.

 

[VTHawk]

Then that is a dumb point. You are what you record says you are. You can only play who is on your schedule (good or bad), and you have to line up and win the games.

I know there is a somewhat famous Bill Parcels quote that sums up what you are saying, but being that we know that numbers can be used to lie and misrepresent, I believe it is reasonable to think that wins and losses do not always tell the entire story of a team.

 

[deanvogs]

I know there is a somewhat famous Bill Parcels quote that sums up what you are saying, but being that we know that numbers can be used to lie and misrepresent, I believe it is reasonable to think that wins and losses do not always tell the entire story of a team.

People want to argue that W/L don't tell the whole story, because they want to spin the record and say it actually means what they think it means, and not what it was. I mean look at all the haters who spin, spin and spin trying to say Iowa's 12 win season "just wasn't that good". At the same time we play a super hard schedule this year and they complain about a 8 win season and don't talk about the schedule at all. This tells me they are just trying to paint as bad a picture as they can. Otherwise they would be consistent and say this season was more like a 10 win season than a 8 win season, just like they try to claim that the 12 win season is really like a 10 win season.

 

[NoBeer]

I believe it is reasonable to think that wins and losses do not always tell the entire story of a team.

...and I don't.

 

[4thngoal]

People want to argue that W/L don't tell the whole story, because they want to spin the record and say it actually means what they think it means, and not what it was. I mean look at all the haters who spin, spin and spin trying to say Iowa's 12 win season "just wasn't that good". At the same time we play a super hard schedule this year and they complain about a 8 win season and don't talk about the schedule at all. This tells me they are just trying to paint as bad a picture as they can. Otherwise they would be consistent and say this season was more like a 10 win season than a 8 win season, just like they try to claim that the 12 win season is really like a 10 win season.

True.

 

[SpiderRico]

I know there is a somewhat famous Bill Parcels quote that sums up what you are saying, but being that we know that numbers can be used to lie and misrepresent, I believe it is reasonable to think that wins and losses do not always tell the entire story of a team.

Until they come up with a different way to measure the success of a sports team, then Wins and Losses ALWAYS tell the story of your season. We don't play the game for any other reason other than to compete and to win. Sure people may try to spin it one way or another based on their own innate biases, but you play the teams that are put in front of you and you either win them or you lose them. They don't give bonus points for how you won or degree of difficulty...this ain't the Olympics.

 

[4thngoal]

Until they come up with a different way to measure the success of a sports team, then Wins and Losses ALWAYS tell the story of your season. We don't play the game for any other reason other than to compete and to win. Sure people may try to spin it one way or another based on their own innate biases, but you play the teams that are put in front of you and you either win them or you lose them. They don't give bonus points for how you won or degree of difficulty...this ain't the Olympics.

Actually they do. That's how they decide who goes to the final 4.
I agree, you line up and play whoever is in front of you though.

 

[VTHawk]

...and I don't.

Two teams have a 12-2 win loss record at the end of the season. Just by the win loss record which team is better?

 

[NoBeer]

Two teams have a 12-2 win loss record at the end of the season. Just by the win loss record which team is better?

Fair odds the one that's not Iowa.

 

[VTHawk]

Fair odds the one that's not Iowa.

But how would you know which team is better?