Why isn't Notre Dame included?
At long last, ESPN released their 2014 rankings, which means I no longer have an excuse to not put this together. With a new recruiting cycle comes some changes to the rankings:
If you've got any suggestions, please leave a comment or send me an email. Without further ado...
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|247 Comp. Rank (Ovr)||School||# Commits||5*||4*||3*||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||24/7 Avg||ESPN Avg||Avg Avg^|
|2 (9)||Ohio State||7||0||5||2||3.43||3.71||3.86||3.43||3.61|
|4 (19)||Penn State||6||0||2||4||3.17||3.33||3.33||3.33||3.29|
|5 (20)||Michigan State||6||0||0||6||3.17||3.33||3.50||3.00||3.25|
^The average of the average rankings of the four recruiting services (the previous four columns). The figure is calculated based on the raw numbers and then rounded, so the numbers above may not average out exactly.
NOTE: Unranked recruits are counted as two-star players.
On to the full data after the jump.
|#1 Michigan - 8 Commits|
Michigan debuts at the top after picking up three commits in the span of a week. With Drake Harris on the verge of five-star status on a couple of the sites and guys like Bunting, Bushell-Beatty, and Ways expected to get a bump in future rankings, their already-impressive star average (3.63) may go up soon.
|#2 Ohio State - 7 Commits|
Interesting to note, considering the conversation surrounding both programs' recruiting strategy in the last year, that five of OSU's seven commits come from Ohio, while Michigan's eight commits hail from seven different states.
|#3 Rutgers - 8 Commits|
As usual, Rutgers is building a solid but unspectacular class around local talent. Detroit Country Day QB Tyler Wiegers (you may know him as "hey, who's that guy throwing to Moe Ways?") could be an early sleeper pickup for them.
|#4 Penn State - 6 Commits|
Ditto for Penn State, though they should be able pack a little more quality into a smaller class.
|#5 Michigan State - 6 Commits|
|Enoch Smith Jr.||DT||IL||3||3||4||3|
MSU is quietly setting the foundation for a decent class, and could get a boost from four-star Southfield DE Lawrence Marshall, who may decide soon and appears ticketed for East Lansing if he does.
|#6 Wisconsin - 4 Commits|
Clearly, Gary Anderson's staff has focused first and foremost on locking up top in-state talent, and in that regard they've done quite well.
|#7 Northwestern - 5 Commits|
After getting four-star QB Matt Alviti in the 2013 class, Northwestern already has a four-star signal-caller in place for 2014 in Clayton Thorson.
|#8 Iowa - 3 Commits|
Like Wisconsin, except not as good.
|#9 Minnesota - 3 Commits|
Dimonic McKinzy is your early frontrunner for Big Ten Recruit Name of the Year.
|#10 Illinois - 3 Commits|
Not a particularly strong start for Illinois, perhaps because there were legitimate calls for Tim Beckman's job after his disastrous 2-10 first season in Champaign.
|#11 Maryland - 2 Commits|
Slow start, but there's plenty of talent in the surrounding area to fill out a class.
|#12 Nebraska - 1 Commit|
Nebraska tends to make a late push in recruiting, and they'll undoubtedly move up from here over time.
|#13 Purdue - 1 Commit|
Not a surprise that Purdue has a lone commit considering (1) they have a new coach and (2) it's Purdue.
#14 Indiana - 0 Commits
Why isn't Notre Dame included?
Ace's method of ranking the schools is arbitrary and makes no sense.
/the other guy
You guys, this discussion happens every time Ace posts this. Why have you not read every comment ever made on the board?
because we're now committed to repeating this schtick throughout the entire 2014 recruiting season. Trust me, this never gets old!
I'll be there to enjoy it.
Pretty much the only reason I scrolled to the comments last year was to see that interaction unfold each week.
What's a Rutgers?
An old wodden ship used in the Civil War era.
Sorry, you're confused. That's Diversity.
Rutgers is the feeling you get in your stomach after eating too many ribs and drinking five to seven cheap beers.
To hell with Notre Dame
Indiana makes me smile.
Why no Brady Pallante?
He's gray shirting.
That Rutgers is ranked two spots ahead of MSU? Their average ranking is much lower, and they only have two more recruits committed...
And what about Wisconsin? They have all four star commits, yet they're ranked below both. The fuck?
That doesn't make sense, sorry.
They are ranked very close to each other, so one more commit could swing it, but you have to have quantity play a role as well. These things usually work themselves out as the class sizes even out though.
Boom! That guy!
MSU has four commits with a 4-star rating from at least one service, plus a pair of 3-star guys. I think that is superior to Wisconsin's bare four 4-star commits.
Rutgers I think is a close call with Wisconsin; they have eight 3-star commits vs. Wisconsin's four 4-stars. I guess Ace is giving the nod to Rutgers' quantity over Wisconsin's quality. I happen to agree with Ace on that, but I think there is a pretty strong argument for the opposite as well--especially early in the cycle.
The rankings are going by 247's composite rankings in the first column, which has Rutgers ahead of MSU and Wisconsin. Ace didn't rank these.
Ace, by not issuing a B1G recruiting rankings post for many weeks, created a void in the recruiting website-blogosphere continuum that 247 Sports rushed into and filled with its composite rankings. Therefore, my statement that Ace ranked the classes was true--from a certain point of view.
Yoda ... you seek Yoda.
even after he explained the simple system he devised. Now he's just using 247's composite rankings, but that hardly makes a difference.
Now we have something else to argue about.
If you don't want to click on the link above, use the following for a quick estimate (last years method) Number of Commits * Avg Star Rating. By that logic, Rutgers has a better class based on the quantity of recruits.
Maybe you guys are right, but it still doesn't pass the eyeball test IMO. I've been a little snippy lately, the wife type substance cut me off recently and I'm not handling it very well.
Sorry for being dickish, Ace.
No worries, I guess it just depends on your eyeball test though. The way I see it, a four star is better than a 3 star by a lesser margin than a 3 star is better than nobody. Rutgers has 33% more recruits than MSU and MSU has 50% more than Wisconsin.
Some people will make the argument that the teams with the lower quantity will add recruits who are at least two stars so you should account for that but you can't. You just have to use the "if signing day was today here is how they'd rank" approach.
The thing is, I don't think it's correct to attribute that much value to one or two more guys. Later in the recruiting cyle, I can understand it more. Then you get cases like Ole Miss (not so much this year) recrtuiting 37 guys, you have to draw a line somewhere.
I still think MSU should be ahead of Rutgers, and so should Wisky, but that's just like, my opinion, man.
But two guys is a lot when you're talking about classes of four and six players. This is like comparing final classes of 24 and 16 guys, proportionally speaking. And you can't go changing your methodology all season long.
But like I said, as teams get more recruits, these iron themselves out so don't worry about it right now. Rutgers has twice as many commits as Wisconsin right now, but they won't in February.
Additionally, the Rutgera averages are a little skewed to the low because so many of their guys aren't yet ranked, so they are calculated as 2 stars. Some of them might end up as 2 stars, but it's likely that most of them will be 3 stars, so those 2.7-ish averages will end up much closer to an even 3.
Well, I read through your exchange with WolveinLA2 earlier today and thought it was a good example of this board at its best. You both made good points and argued your positions without coming off as douches. Then, evidently some unfortunate person came along, straight from RCMB or mlive most likely, and moderated your comments as flamebait because he or she presumably didn't agree with you.
Yeah, a lot of times people will mark stuff as such simply because they don't like or agree with the point being made. Luckily, it doesn't actually do anything (other than hurt my feelings).
Also, thanks for not correcting my typo. I don't usually mis-spell words, but flamebait was apparently too much for me to get right last night...
Well it's pretty obvious ESPN is the best at ranking recruits this year.
For sure, and what happened to Scout? They were so good last year. Clearly they've lost their ability to evaluate talent.
You don't really need Big Ten+ anymore, do you?
Not nitpicking, please don't take this as nitpicking; just pointing it out and wondering aloud/atyped.
are not in the Big Ten (yet)
Como esta's puntas totales?
Top 5 all in the new East Division. Will be interesting to see how the two divisions stack up over a period of time.
He actually counts toward our composite ranking on 24/7 I believe. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if they took grey shirts out of those rankings.
Just saying that the 247 composite rankings include him while these charts do not (with the exception of the inclusion of said composite ranking).
for a semester. In that case, they are no different than an EE from the following HS class.
Pallante wouldn't affect us that much. You can look up the calculations, but it's not many points that he actually contributes to our total team ranking points (basically if you take him out, we stay in the same position).
Nice class for Rutgers to make up for their 7 NFL draftees
I'm telling you, everyone pisses all over Rutgers but they could be a sleeping giant. Look for them to start a decent interesting rivalry with Penn State. And if I'm Sparty, I would be as worried about them as I would be with Michigan/OSU/PSU.
If I had to guess who I thought would win more Big Ten games over the next 5 years between Rutgers and MSU, I'd pick Rutgers. Not by a lot, but by some.