Updated: #48 Ranked Class and #12 in B1G per ESPN

I wouldn't use ESPN as a source. They cover the top kids and that's about it. Rivals and Scout/247 do a much better job. That actually go out and watch the prospects for evaluation. ESPN does very little of that.
 
DunderMifflinHk said:
Looks like on rivals were 8th in the Big 10 and 39th overall. I would like to be top 25 every year and top 6 in the Big 10. I think that is a realistic goal. With how we develop players I think that would be a model for success.

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2018/all-teams/football
Click to expand...

7th if you look average player ranking... I really like this class a lot, quality over quantity! Was going to be a small class from the get go and I really think this staff did an outstanding job! Also liked Phil talking changing the D up with adding an extra safety and going with 2 LB's.

ESPN recruiting is HOT GARBAGE... If you are not signing with the SEC you are a 2* in their eyes, awful coverage!
 
You know...at this point...it's about getting players that can make an impact right away in certain areas...WR, DBs and DTs for example. We've done that. I think the last two classes we have had have been underrated based on the contributions on the field. Getting 4 four star players is pretty impressive for Iowa. It's definitely getting better.
 
With everything going on at ESPN and all their recent layoffs I'm amazed they even have the resources to actually rank signing day classes.
 
Does Kirk get a bonus for being 12th best or lower in the big ten recruiting rankings?

You get yourself several years of this level and you end up in the Roadstripe Bowl...with another bonus!

You have to love tolerant Iowa if you are in the coaching business...scuffle along, build your legacy, set your next generation of family up for life...
 
Clark44 said:
I agree with ESPN not being the hot source for recruiting, but when we are getting trumped by Rutgers, it is a WTF moment regardless of the source.
Click to expand...
Not really. I'd rather have our class any day. Look at Rutgers and Minnesota. Both have larger classes than us, so their ranking is better for it, but their average rating per player is significantly lower. Iowa's average rating is right there with Wisky, which is where we need to be.

Even if it was a better recruiting service you were quoting, rankings are flawed because they give too much credit for quantity. Iowa didn't need a huge class this year, they needed a high quality class, and, especially with the developments of the last month getting Petras, Waggoner, and Dallas C, Iowa has accomplished what it needed to.
 
Using Iowa's typical recruiting performance as the benchmark I would say this was a good class.......measuring against all FBS, I'd go with above average. If 20-22 is the number we're shooting for to fill then we still have room for a few additions perhaps to aid our finish.

Sitting at #34 with 247 as of this post. Our highest finish in recent years was 2011 (26th). You strengthen your program by building layers of recruiting success from year to year. Iowa needs to find more consistency with their recruiting results in order to help contribute to more consistency on the field in my opinion. Last 5 years have been a blend of 40's and 50's at the finish line for us but the trend has been upward each year for '16, '17, and now '18.
 
Recruiting rankings matter more than they should. Spots 1-20 are usually accurate, as those teams are signing a lot of 4 and 5 stars, and usually the full limit or more as well. Spots 20 through around 60 or 70 have very little separation between them. You can flip one or two guys and have teams 10 spots apart flip places. Once you get in that range, you're splitting hairs. Complain all you want about being ranked below Minny and Rutgers, but I agree with Brownlee, we're signing a small, but quality class without resorting to fallback options.
 
https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings?Conference=Big-Ten
SamBrownlee48 said:
Not really. I'd rather have our class any day. Look at Rutgers and Minnesota. Both have larger classes than us, so their ranking is better for it, but their average rating per player is significantly lower. Iowa's average rating is right there with Wisky, which is where we need to be.

Even if it was a better recruiting service you were quoting, rankings are flawed because they give too much credit for quantity. Iowa didn't need a huge class this year, they needed a high quality class, and, especially with the developments of the last month getting Petras, Waggoner, and Dallas C, Iowa has accomplished what it needed to.
Click to expand...

Well said! So instead of going to Negative Town on everything Iowa does, learn how the ranking and recruiting system works. Sneaky good class, could have used 1-2 more LB's, but if they are looking at changing the defensive set up a bit they nailed it with some of the athletes they got. Beat Wisconsin for Honas and next year could be a fun season!
 
Yeah, I wouldn't put much stock in ESPN's recruiting rankings. They're a joke.

Considering where this class was just a month or two ago, I'm very satisfied with how it's wrapping up. The staff did a great job in the final stretch. And keep in mind that they're still in on a few guys that could improve our ranking when it's all said and done.
 
BVHawk95 said:
Recruiting rankings matter more than they should. Spots 1-20 are usually accurate, as those teams are signing a lot of 4 and 5 stars, and usually the full limit or more as well. Spots 20 through around 60 or 70 have very little separation between them. You can flip one or two guys and have teams 10 spots apart flip places. Once you get in that range, you're splitting hairs. Complain all you want about being ranked below Minny and Rutgers, but I agree with Brownlee, we're signing a small, but quality class without resorting to fallback options.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have been saying this for a long time. If you are a top 20 class, that matters, as your class is made up of a lot of 4*/5* guys. Those are the players most everyone would take if they had the ability to land them. As KF likes to say these are the guys that even someone who knows nothing about football can see these players are better than the rest.

Spots #30-#50 are much more variable. These classes will come down to the staff who spots talent others don't see and develop talent well. Teams like Wisconsin, and Iowa, do this well. If Iowa would consistently get these classes, they would win more consistently as well. This is the first time in Ferentz tenure at Iowa that his classes have finished better than #50 for 3 straight years. The problem with Iowa is they have 2 good classes for them, and then two ranked in the 50's or even 60's. Iowa has stepped up the recruiting each of the last 3 years going from mid 40's (2016) to low 40's/high 30's (2017) to mid 30's/low 30's this year. Of course depending on the service.

I know we have a certain poster on here that claim the coaches are lazy, but the results are actually showing that Iowa is stepping up their recruiting game. Iowa has started off the 2019 class with 3 players who are rated as 4* by at least one recruiting service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top