Toggle sidebar

All-time highest class?

P

phatcat_rivals223240

All-Conference
Nov 5, 2001
18,908
1,060
113
Saw this on TOS and on an email from NU.

What does this mean? Grade inflation?. Did the 50 teams (Rivals) ranked hard of us also have their highest classes ever?

I'm excited to see these guys in action, but after last year, I'll skip the next helping of hyperbole.
 
H

Hungry Jack

All-Conference
Nov 17, 2008
37,489
2,981
67
Maybe it was a reference to the fact that recreational mary jane will be legal come January 1?
 
S

spartcat

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
3,856
31
0
Linemen count in rankings too, and we have some major studs, but the 1997 class still has to be the highest ranked.
 
J

jensberg

Sophomore
Jul 28, 2006
2,981
150
63
Interesting observation from dinardo at Big Ten Network stated that though this is our highest class ever it is still 10th best in the Big Ten and second-lowest in the Big Ten West. His point is that even though we are moving up in recruiting so is everyone else that was already ahead of us.
 
W

willycat

Junior
Jan 11, 2005
21,448
318
0
jensberg said:
Interesting observation from dinardo at Big Ten Network stated that though this is our highest class ever it is still 10th best in the Big Ten and second-lowest in the Big Ten West. His point is that even though we are moving up in recruiting so is everyone else that was already ahead of us.
Click to expand...
He's probably right, but for someone who's nephew? played at NU, he sure hates on them.
 
W

wildcatpn

Junior
Oct 26, 2005
3,342
231
63
jensberg said:
Interesting observation from dinardo at Big Ten Network stated that though this is our highest class ever it is still 10th best in the Big Ten and second-lowest in the Big Ten West. His point is that even though we are moving up in recruiting so is everyone else that was already ahead of us.
Click to expand...
And if he’s basing this off of the 247 rankings did he mention that the only reason Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa and Maryland are ahead of us is because of the size of their classes? If it was based on the average ranking of all players in a class, those 4 are behind us. It amazes me when people fail to realize this.
 
P

phatcat_rivals223240

All-Conference
Nov 5, 2001
18,908
1,060
113
wildcatpn said:
And if he’s basing this off of the 247 rankings did he mention that the only reason Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa and Maryland are ahead of us is because of the size of their classes? If it was based on the average ranking of all players in a class, those 4 are behind us. It amazes me when people fail to realize this.
Click to expand...
This is a fair point and will always be an issue for us, I hope. It means kids are staying and graduating. But even w star rankings we are middle of the pack at best, so is this class the tallest midget?
 
M

mikero3

Redshirt
Jun 16, 2018
818
0
15
wildcatpn said:
And if he’s basing this off of the 247 rankings did he mention that the only reason Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa and Maryland are ahead of us is because of the size of their classes? If it was based on the average ranking of all players in a class, those 4 are behind us. It amazes me when people fail to realize this.
Click to expand...

It might help if we signed good recruits for all the available slots. We seem to have had one or two spots open many years and then when we have guys leave the program during the summer or fall...we have more. We seem to save them for...nobody except walk-ons. We haven't been getting a lot of grad transfers or transfers, so it's another thing where I don't really see the benefit.

I can't remember the count at the time, but we went into last season several players under the scholarship limit.

I know our many of our walk-ons deserved a scholarship, but you don't save spots for them, you give them the spots that inevitably open in the fall.

That being said I don't care about the rankings, but do care who offered our recruits.
 
G

Gocatsgo2003

All-Conference
Mar 30, 2006
46,846
3,184
78
mikero3 said:
It might help if we signed good recruits for all the available slots. We seem to have had one or two spots open many years and then when we have guys leave the program during the summer or fall...we have more. We seem to save them for...nobody except walk-ons. We haven't been getting a lot of grad transfers or transfers, so it's another thing where I don't really see the benefit.

I can't remember the count at the time, but we went into last season several players under the scholarship limit.

I know our many of our walk-ons deserved a scholarship, but you don't save spots for them, you give them the spots that inevitably open in the fall.

That being said I don't care about the rankings, but do care who offered our recruits.
Click to expand...

Then you should be pretty darn happy with this class, especially the big guys.
 
DaCat

DaCat

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
25,584
1,993
113
jensberg said:
Interesting observation from dinardo at Big Ten Network stated that though this is our highest class ever it is still 10th best in the Big Ten and second-lowest in the Big Ten West. His point is that even though we are moving up in recruiting so is everyone else that was already ahead of us.
Click to expand...

We've been ranked near the bottom of the B1G recruiting rankings forever. The actual results the past few years indicate otherwise.
 
W

willycat

Junior
Jan 11, 2005
21,448
318
0
wildcatpn said:
And if he’s basing this off of the 247 rankings did he mention that the only reason Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa and Maryland are ahead of us is because of the size of their classes? If it was based on the average ranking of all players in a class, those 4 are behind us. It amazes me when people fail to realize this.
Click to expand...
I thought that someone has previously mentioned that Rivals takes into account the size of the class. They evaluate on average not just total commits. True?
 
G

Gocatsgo2003

All-Conference
Mar 30, 2006
46,846
3,184
78
FanatiCat said:
To answer the previous question, Rivals does take into account class size, as explained in your link. They score the top 20 recruits. So at 16 we’re still underweighted, but the 25-recruit programs don’t have as big an advantage.
Click to expand...

So “no it isn’t just averaged rating.” Which is the question to which i responded.
 
H

Hungry Jack

All-Conference
Nov 17, 2008
37,489
2,981
67
The last time we had a class greater than 20 was 2012 (22 scholllies). Our highest ranked class in recent years (2014 group of JJTBC, CT, GDick, etc) had only 15 schollies.
 
W

willycat

Junior
Jan 11, 2005
21,448
318
0
FanatiCat said:
To answer the previous question, Rivals does take into account class size, as explained in your link. They score the top 20 recruits. So at 16 we’re still underweighted, but the 25-recruit programs don’t have as big an advantage.
Click to expand...
well it looks like they 3 or 4 more to offer. Time for the staff build up their air miles.
 
D

DarthCat

Sophomore
Jun 5, 2001
3,375
194
63
phatcat said:
Saw this on TOS and on an email from NU.

What does this mean? Grade inflation?. Did the 50 teams (Rivals) ranked hard of us also have their highest classes ever?

I'm excited to see these guys in action, but after last year, I'll skip the next helping of hyperbole.
Click to expand...

No idea how this can be claimed. Rankings are different now, admittedly. But the 1997 class had 20 members, and was ranked between 15th and 17th by the prevailing experts at the time. In the attached, it even references the 1993 class, which was apparently being recognized as being 23rd.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-02-05-9702050239-story.html

I dont see the math that makes this year's 49th class in Rivals and the 35th in 247 gets us to that level.
 
Last edited:
J

jensberg

Sophomore
Jul 28, 2006
2,981
150
63
I think the pundits are saying it's the best class in Fitz era not in the universities history
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom