Now that we’ve gone through every Big 12 recruiting class, I guess it makes sense to grade them all in comparison. This is a little tricky since each team has different goals for their program and different approaches to getting it done, but I’m basically going to rank each class on how likely it is to be a driving force in that program winning a Big 12 title.
In doing so, I’ll try to divorce that class from the greater context of the program. For instance, Oklahoma is the most likely of every school to win a Big 12 title over the next five years. I don’t think you can find a five year stretch they’ve had under Bob Stoops in which they didn’t win at least two Big 12 titles. So if you went off “which of these classes is most likely to graduate with a B12 championship ring” then we’d have to grade OU no. 1 whether this particular class has much to do with a conference title or not. They still may be no. 1, I’m writing this intro before compiling the grades, but the point is that this ranking will be based solely on how likely each class is to be a crucial component to a Big 12 title. All clear?
Here we go, I’m including the overall grade, offensive and defensive breakdowns, and their 247 composite rank for some overall context. To get my ranks I compiled all of their grades and then triple-weighted QB and double-weighted OL and all of defensive units. I also adjusted some of the Texas grades for this since I put those together before breaking down the other classes. They went down overall, as you might guess from their finish.
Here are the results:
Basically the takeaway is that I don’t see as much separation between all of these teams as you’d think from normal rankings, although my order is similar to what the services make of these classes. My main adjustment is to view the K-State crew as a group that’s likely to win a lot of games which I think will hold up provided they don’t overhaul their coaching staff and go in a wildly different direction in the coming years.
I also knocked the Longhorns down quite a bit. The 247 guys would say that Texas has a higher percentage of blue-chip talent in their class than do the Bears or Frogs, and I agree some of their athletes are a notch above, but they didn’t secure many high-level athletes in the trenches and took lower numbers this year.
Oklahoma’s gap was narrowed considerably because I didn’t weight all of the WRs and RBs they signed as having nearly as much value as the services would attribute to them. However, they still finish high because they got a bunch of big bodies on OL and DL. I think we all understand that’s why Oklahoma tends to win, anyways.
Baylor was rewarded for taking lots of guys that seem to be good fits with high upside. It’s a bit of an unfair advantage in comparison but the criteria of “most likely to be a crucial component in a B12 title” means that taking more numbers has to be rewarded so long as you aren’t filling up on bread. The Bears took a ton of OL and DL that will be redshirted and provide the infrastructure of the team down the road.
I liked Sam Ehlinger, Shawn Robinson, and Sammy Wheeler the most of all the QBs in this class and you’ll notice that each of them bring a lot of value-add in the run game but are also capable in the passing game. That’s the way to win titles in the Big 12, everyone can throw the ball around but not everyone can also run the ball well and play defense.
Just about everyone scored pretty well on offense but defense is what will separate the wheat from the chaff.
Here are the class breakdowns if you missed any!
Can’t argue too much about the WVU ranking. Since you wrote them up, they added a grad transfer CB from Syracuse who looks like an instant starter. Good size, some disruptive ability and a decent amount of experience:
http://www.smokingmusket.com/2017/2/10/14583900/west-virginia-wvu-mountaineers-syracuse-graduate-transfer-cornerback-corey-winfield
Really enjoyed reading these Ian, thanks for the hard work.
You’re very welcome!
I didn’t include all the transfers in these breakdowns, sadly. I missed Anu Solomon, for instance, but I might make up for that later with a full eval post on him.
West Virginia is living off transfers these days and doing it pretty well. That can be a bad thing if you’re taking everyone’s cast-offs but a guy like Will Grier…I mean whatever, I’m pretty sure that a sizable portion of college football is using PEDs.
“[T]his ranking will be based solely on how likely each class is to be a crucial component to a Big 12 title.”
Perhaps I am viewing this explanation differently, but I would be a lot more bullish about Texas’s class here because of the other components already on the team. As in, I think Texas’s 2017 class will be integral in their team being able to compete for a Big12 tile in 2018 and 2019 because of who will be upperclassmen and how they will fit within that existing structure. By contrast, Herman’s got his work cut out for him on future recruiting classes to fill the holes when this group turns into seniors. (Hello offensive and defensive lines!)
And I see the reverse in Baylor. I like Rhule’s 2017 crop … in 2019. There’s a lot of great developmental prospects that likely won’t payoff immediately, but will pay dividends down the line. And probably won’t do much to help Baylor win a Big12 title in the interim.
Herman and Rhule have different problems, however, and I think that’s reflected in their recruiting. One guy must get the talent he does have on his roster to perform. The other has to build from the ground up for the next few years. I see them as nearly equivalent, but peaking at different times. Or maybe you’re taking that into account already.
“Perhaps I am viewing this explanation differently, but I would be a lot more bullish about Texas’s class here because of the other components already on the team.”
I’m trying to view these classes in a vacuum without putting much consideration into the surrounding classes. Maybe that’s the wrong way to do it but that was how I tried to consider them for this ranking.
I understand the position of viewing classes in a vacuum, but I think it is less informative.
For example, the Sooners HAD to take some DL this year after taking only one in 2016. Furthermore, their DL coach is just completing his first year. Therefore, it was expected that OU would need to take bodies in spite of not having deep recruiting relationships.
Well honestly the real meat here is in the team by team stuff. I threw this in as a fun snapshot of single classes and it seemed best to grade them with less consideration for other classes.
If I can figure a way to weight them in context maybe I’ll try that next time.
I think my comment here was interpreted as being more critical than intended. I have no issue with grading the various recruiting classes in a vacuum. That’s fine. I was more getting at the fact that I think the grades come out differently for certain schools when looking to the likelihood of winning the Big12 title with the roster already in place.
So I agree: Baylor’s class is superior to that of Texas’s when divorced from the rest of their respective rosters. But I was intending to communicate that I preferred Texas’s class when you factor in what the Longhorns already have. E.g., Texas already has a bunch of offensive linemen, so adding a lot more in the 2017 class would have been redundant.
Maybe providing both grades – context-free and context-driven – would help. I don’t know. But to be clear: I was not suggesting the way you did it was wrong. I was just offering my opinion on how it comes out differently viewed another way. That’s all.
No worries, this is an insecurity-free zone. Anyone that tries to take themselves too seriously in projecting high school athletes is a tool, haha.
“So I agree: Baylor’s class is superior to that of Texas’s when divorced from the rest of their respective rosters. But I was intending to communicate that I preferred Texas’s class when you factor in what the Longhorns already have. E.g., Texas already has a bunch of offensive linemen, so adding a lot more in the 2017 class would have been redundant.”
I’m hoping that just adding Sam Ehlinger to what was already on campus will have a huge multiplier effect for Texas in the near future.
Cool. Just wanted to make sure you knew it was a friendly disagreement.
Right, Ehlinger is a key component. Is he the best QB prospect out there? Eh, probably not. But he’s a fantastic fit for Herman’s offense. I also feel the same way about Texas’s RBs, TEs, and OL: all great fits for the system.
Love the banter, the more the better.
I love Ehlinger as a QB prospect. I know he’s not the fastest running threat or the strongest passer but I think his diverse and unique skill set is going to be very easy to build around and I think his feel for the pocket and overall fearlessness is going to help him be a lot better than people expected.
Sorta like Baker Mayfield but I think Ehlinger’s toolbox is even better.
Good write up Ian! Sammy Wheeler’s measurable are old. He is a legit 6’4 7/8″ 215.
Keep up the good work.
Nice. The next Collin Klein.
I don’t really care about letter grades, but I’m curious about a couple of statements that you made to justify minimizing OU’s advantage over the rest of the conference.
“Oklahoma’s gap was narrowed considerably because I didn’t weight all of the WRs and RBs they signed as having nearly as much value”
I really like OU’s offensive class so I’m surprised by this statement. There were only two real targets on offense who they wanted and did’t get: JK Dobbins and Reagor. That said, the players that they did get fit their system really well. OU got three RB types in a year that they lose three RB and have no proven returnees. The Sooners lost a national award winning WR and have only one WR with significant production returning. They needed numbers at these positions and got numbers and quality.
Why did you minimize the importance of these recruits?
“[T]hey still finish high because they got a bunch of big bodies on OL and DL. I think we all understand that’s why Oklahoma tends to win, anyways.”
So understanding this, I’m also puzzled by why you don’t think OU’s advantage is greater. This is the best OU OL recruiting class in seven years (during the Stoops era, only the 2010 class is even in the picture).
On the other side, OU got three promising DL in James, Thomas, and McKinney. DL was a position of real need this year, but a position where OU’s coaching staff was weak. Based on player availability and the fact that OU’s DL coach has only been in Norman for a year now, it’s really good that OU got numbers with only one true reach (Lott).
My sense at looking around the league is that it’s hard to gain much advantage from who you have at the skill positions unless the QB or OL can set you up to utilize them. So WR, ancillary, and RB grades are only single-weighted.
I do think a true stud at one of these positions can make a big difference but even then, every team in the league generally has one stud. Having 2 is probably what it takes to stand out.
All that to say, it just didn’t make sense to try and weight skill grades any more heavily than the fact that there were already 3 skill grades going into the formula.
Well I gave this group a really high grade and then I double weighted the OL in the formula like I did for every other team.
To put more emphasis on this group I’d have had to weight OU’s OL more heavily than I did for other teams. Now honestly, it would make sense to weight different position groups differently for different teams based on the emphasis they like to put on a given position, but I didn’t go to those lengths here so OU got the same advantage from getting a good OL haul that any other B12 team received or would have received from doing likewise.
Not trying to be argumentative, but aside from the academic exercise I guess there really is no basis for evaluating a recruiting class without taken into consideration how the class dovetails with the talent currently on campus and how it fits the systems of the current coaching staff.
Akin to rating recruiting classes purely based upon the mathematical formula of number of players signed times the recruit’s individual rating. Does not factor in how many of those recruits can’t qualify or that in your class you signed 6 wide receivers and almost no true defensive tackles (i.e. TCU a few years back).
Unfortunately, I am not sure I have ever come across a site that has the expertise or breadth of knowledge to accurate gauge a group as wide as a conference.
“Not trying to be argumentative, but aside from the academic exercise I guess there really is no basis for evaluating a recruiting class without taken into consideration how the class dovetails with the talent currently on campus and how it fits the systems of the current coaching staff.”
That’s actually what I aimed to accomplish with the individual class breakdowns, which are the real meat of this whole exercise. This final ranking is my first stab at trying to compare what I found when I looked at each class from the perspective of “how does this fit into what this program has been building over the last few years?”
Breaking down Iowa State’s 2018 recruiting class – Concerning Sports
[…] that time of the year again, when I break down every recruiting class in the Big 12. Last year’s effort was probably my most comprehensive yet, we’ll have to see whether I have the juice to do a similarly sweeping review this year. For […]
Space force enlistment: My new metric for evaluating Big 12 recruiting – Concerning Sports
[…] the old sportstreatise.blogspotcom. From 2017 to 2019 I did it all here and compiled them for 2017 here, 2018 here, and 2019 […]