Does anyone know why our recruiting

This topic has 8 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 months ago by The Miami Ute.

Viewing 3 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 06/16/2024 at 7:24 AM #217150
  
  Dallas
  Participant
  
  Class went from 23rd to 40th between years 2023 and 2024? We were on a great trajectory until then. Was it the switch to the B12? 247 currently has us listed at 64th in the 2025 class, right next to Mississippi state the the TDS.
- 06/16/2024 at 7:44 AM #217152
  6
  
  Yergensen
  Participant
  
  Class ranking is not the right metric. It factors quantity of recruits/class size. So you can have a small class of 10 recruits whose avg recruit score/talent score is 90 (see Colorado 2024 HS recruiting class ranking) and another team whose class of 25 recruits with an avg recruit score is 85 (see BYU 2024 HS recruiting class ranking) and the latter gets a higher class ranking. Would you rather have a smaller, higher 4* talent class or a large class of middling 3* recruits?
  
  The key recruiting metric is the avg recruit score, it is a talent indicator. If you compare Utah’s 2024 overall avg recruit score of 87.85 with other teams, Utah ranked #28 in talent. In 2023 Utah ranked #24 in talent with an avg recruit score of 88.43.
  
  So, our talent score was down a half point from 2023 to 2024, but relative to other teams’ recruit talent we were still top 30.
  - 06/16/2024 at 7:58 AM #217153
    
    Dallas
    Participant
    
    Doesn’t each team have the same number of recruits/scholarships each year?? Why would we have a significantly smaller class one year to the next?
    - 06/16/2024 at 8:00 AM #217154
      1
      
      GameForAnyFuss
      Participant
      
      1. Transfers (in and out) change the number of available slots.
      2. Class sizes are not equal.
      - 06/16/2024 at 8:12 AM #217156
        3
        
        Yergensen
        Participant
        
        Graduation, draft declarations, retirements, return missionaries, scholarship awards etc. all factor along with transfers.
        
        All teams have same scholarships, but in any given year none of them have the same returning players on scholarship due to all of these factors mentioned. So, recruiting class sizes vary accordingly.
    - 06/16/2024 at 10:02 AM #217166
      2
      
      MDUte
      Participant
      
      Yergensen is spot on. The focus needs to be on avg rating per recruit. What has shifted with Utah is our focus on increasing the number of spots left open for transfer portal players. Whitt has gone from taking around 20 high school kids and 5 transfers to around 12 high school kids and 13 transfers. The feeling is there are more kids in the portal who are already mostly developed and ready to make an immediate impact vs high school kids that typically need more development before they’re ready to contribute.
      
      So if our high school class drops down to 12 kids, you’re going to see our team ranking in 247 drop dramatically since a big component of their class rankings is the number of kids which drives up a teams score. 247 does provide a transfer portal team ranking and an overall combined ranking (transfer portal + high school). I’m not sure how accurate this overall ranking really is that takes the portal kids into consideration. But at least it gives better consideration to teams taking more kids through the portal to fill out their roster.
      
      However, at the end of the day, the best data indicator everyone should zero in on is the avg rating per recruit. Utah has consistently been hovering around an 88 per recruit rating. This means that on avg Utah brings in kids who are high 3* (low 4*) rated kids. Contrast this to a team like TSPP who used to be around the 83 avg rating (although they’ve recently seen an uptick to I think 85). This means they have consistently been filling their roster with low to middle 3* kids, hence the big gap in talent between the 2 programs.
- 06/16/2024 at 8:58 AM #217158
  2
  
  krindor
  Participant
  
  It’s already been hit upon that 247 assigns too much value to class size (though it does have some value*) but I’ll add that our 2023 class was stronger than our 2024 class
  
  A big part of that was that the 2023 class was simply stronger in the local area AND Utah cleaned up in-state.
  
  For 2024, there were fewer top prospects in Utah and BYU got some of them. I know Utah appears to have backed off on Asiata, but it’s hard to imagine Utah losing Satuala to BYU if BYU were still independent. So I think that helps.
  
  *I’m normally the first to rail about class size…but it does have a place. Imagine two teams. Team A recruits 3 90 rated players. Team B recruits 3 91 rated players and an 86 rated player.
  
  Now Team A has a team average of 90 and Team B and average of 89.75. But I’d still say B has a better class. That said, I agree that 247 gives way too much weight to class size
- 06/16/2024 at 10:21 AM #217170
  1
  
  Redblood
  Participant
  
  My take is winning the PAC created momentum and helped us land recruits. Especially that win over USC to get to our second Rose. The way our season last year played out and finished lacked the same kind of momentum. Will be interesting to see what happen if, for instance, we won the 12 and made a playoff appearance coming up. Going to be tough but if we do I imagine it would assist our recruiting efforts. Winning matters
  - 06/16/2024 at 10:36 AM #217172
    2
    
    The Miami Ute
    Participant
    
    I’ll second that and also add that the PAC was a way more attractive conference to play in. In the old PAC you could make the case for the presence of two legitimate, and possibly a third, blue blood football powers without even considering Utah. And I’m not even going to touch upon the educational differences between the old PAC and the current Big XII.
Author

Posts