Recruiting talent level better in PJ Fleck era: Will fuel future Gophers' success

hungan1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
14,056
Reaction score
4,143
Points
113
'Sorry mods. This discussion was off-topic in "MJ Anderson Commits!" thread:

Originally posted by short ornery norwegian

in a weird way, the Flecksters are proving Menno's point.

They say - Fleck's recruits are better than previous classes. And yet - the vast majority of Fleck's recruits have been 3-star recruits. Just like the vast majority of the Kill/Claeys era recruits were 3-star recruits.
So, the argument boils down to:
Fleck's 3-star recruits are better than the Kill/Claeys era 3-star recruits.

If you want to get into the numerical ratings, that may be accurate. (assuming you accept the premise that a recruit with a .86 rating is better than a recruit with a .84 rating) but, at some level, you're still saying that one 3-star recruit is better than another 3-star recruit.

Which, to me, is some form of absurdist humor. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

Data shows that is true. Purely based on average composite ratings, Kill's/Claey's best class had an average composite of 0.8427 in 2016. Fleck's 2018 class has an average composite rating of 0.8622 with late corrections. Fleck's 2019 class though is at 0.8454. But, this may change if some players get a later bump in ratings like Faalele, Dunlap, Bateman, Reigelsperger, and Teague all getting late season bumps in their composite ratings last year.

FLECK YEAR 1 VS KILL 2016 BEST RECRUITING CLASS.jpg

On a numerical scale, a 3-Star composite rank is 80-89 (10% players in the nation) while a 4-Star is 90-97 (top 300 players in the nation).

https://247sports.com/Article/247Sports-Rating-Explanation-81574/

So, high 3-Stars could have easily been 4-Stars. The ratings aren't perfect. Upper Midwest recruits, Minnesota recruits, schools that are not geographically located in the hotbeds, etc... may be rated lower based on where the concentration of evaluators are. Who knows.

The important indicators (247Sports) are the team average composite score, and the total number of team points (see attachments).

This year's class has a drop because 2-Star Long snapper Brady Weeks and kicker Camden Lewis each has a composite rating of 0.7781, and the Grey Shirt OT Tyler Cooper has a composite rating of 0.7998. Bear in mind that specialist are usually rated very low as compared to other position players. It looks like PJ Fleck thinks the potential of Tyler Cooper will be much improve and rated higher by the end of his Senior year in HS.

247Sports is projecting that the Gopher's 2020 average composite rating will be around 0.8628 based on the current recruiting data.

The 2017 overall Talent Level Ranking of the Gophers puts them at 12th in the Big Ten and 5th in B1G West (Incidentally, also 5th is their average finish in the standings 2011-2017). The tables below compare the Big Ten Talent Level and the averages for competition years 2015-2017.

BIG TEN AVG ROSTER TALENT LEVEL VS STANDINGS.jpg

B1G ROSTER TALENT SUMMARY BY YEAR-1.jpg

Average composite ratings (with the exception of Nebraska) is a good indicator of finish in the standings.

It seems to correlate really well in the B1G East.

The Gophers average finished in 2015-2017 is 5th. Their average talent level is also 5th.
The data speaks for itself.

It is not so much about four stars. It has more to do with raising the team talent level with more high three stars with a few more four stars with a higher average talent level as Wisconsin has done.

CONCLUSION: If the Gophers continue to recruit talent like they are doing now, they have at least a good shot at a B1G West division title in two or three years.

Of course, this depends on:
1. How the competition do in their recruiting;
2. Player development;
3. How well PJ Fleck and staff can coach;
4. Coaching and system stability.

There is optimism for the future of Gopher Football.

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite?Conference=Big-Ten
 
Last edited:

which goes back to my main point/question:

What is the value of the star ratings - if you have to do a long statistical analysis to come up with a true - or more accurate - method of evaluating a recruiting class.

The star ratings by themselves really don't mean that much. So why have them?

I'm not arguing whether Fleck's recruiting classes are better. I'm just saying I think the star ratings are stupid, because they tell you very little about a recruiting class without all the other data to put the stars in context.
 

Stars are for marketing, publicity, revving up fan interest during the recruiting process, etc...

Fans can remember that Rashod Bateman is a 4-Star (89.14), that Jason Bargy is a 4-Star (0.9271), that Carter Coughlin is a 4-Star (0.9566). They will not remember that Rashod was rated 0.8914, but certainly will remember he is a 4-Star.

The numerical ratings is what is important. This does correlate well with results.
 
Last edited:

Some good info here hungan1. I believe others have posted some similar charts in discussions prior.
Based on the below comment,
So, high 3-Stars could have easily been 4-Stars. The ratings aren't perfect. Upper Midwest recruits, Minnesota recruits, schools that are not geographically located in the hotbeds, etc... may be rated lower based on where the concentration of evaluators are. Who knows.
The '16 class should have a higher composite average due to the number of MN players that were in that class.
Also, interesting to see that D. Greene was the lowest rated recruit that season, but is now one of the top OL for this season.
How do you account for the 3 players who have left the team from the '16 class? Does it boost the rating up to .8458?

The '18 group was a solid looking class on paper. Soon we will find out if they can play and contribute. Can't wait for the games to begin so we can start discussing the positives and negatives of the games instead of this recruiting rankings stuff.
 

Change the ratings to 1-10 stars. This system is cumbersome, inaccurate, and antiquated. We differentiate an A- from an A +, after all.
 


Change the ratings to 1-10 stars. This system is cumbersome, inaccurate, and antiquated. We differentiate an A- from an A +, after all.

Dump the stars period. Really, what is their sole purpose except create issues among fans etc. Schools can be overrated based on late development of players etc. You can't measure heart, determination, maturity, etc. So 4's could easily be a 3, and 3's could easily be 4's. Who cares about the stars. The only people who really care about them are the people who have a boring life and have nothing else to do except criticize players based on stars.
 

I’m not a “star gazer” but it’s a big industry. I’m simply saying it would be -a little- more accurate to say PJ is bring in a 4-6 star average class than the 2-4 star level classes we had under the previous regime in lieu of saying they’re all 3 stars.

I’m results-oriented and I’m well aware of the many exceptions to the recruiting mantra of you are who you recruit. It’s a combination of recruiting motivated talent, keeping and developing players, game planning, and in game decisions that determine ultimate results.
 

When all is said and done...after the noise of your arguments based upon dissecting star ratings...ranking...merit or lack of merit: the number of Big Ten wins achieved by P J Fleck over the course of his tenure here at Minnesota will answer with precision exactly how well P J was able to compete in the Big Ten Conference with the stars and their rankings of his recruits. It will also factor in his coaching ability. It will tell us how the ball bounced during his time in Minneapolis. We will be able to compare how he did compared to TC, Kill, Brewster, Mason, Wacker, Gutty, Hoax, Salem, Stoll, Murray, Fessler and Bierman, himself.

So, argue it out boys and girls. Call each other names. Insinuate anything you want. Try to prove it with your words. Convince others to join your point of view. Do this all with passion, conviction and strong beliefs. My way takes all the fantasy out of high school multi-star football recruiting at the University of Minnesota and in other spots in the Big Ten Conference. In my method: optimal emphasis is placed on the results of REAL Big Ten Football Games that have actually been played AND completed. I suppose that is rather boring...but: it works.

My way will break it all down into precise percentages and completely rank and rate the effectiveness of guessing how the star ranking system of this era works against the time-tested old method of counting Big Ten wins and contrasting them with Big Ten losses. It can't be valid including ooc games because there is such a variance of relative strength of the southwest, northeast, mountain, little sisters of the poor types of teams the ooc schedule is so notorious for.

In the end, my ranking system will be able to answer all of your star-gazing assumptions and guesses.
 
Last edited:

which goes back to my main point/question:

What is the value of the star ratings - if you have to do a long statistical analysis to come up with a true - or more accurate - method of evaluating a recruiting class.

The star ratings by themselves really don't mean that much. So why have them?

I'm not arguing whether Fleck's recruiting classes are better. I'm just saying I think the star ratings are stupid, because they tell you very little about a recruiting class without all the other data to put the stars in context.
Right.
But, even with a more detailed nuance in the data, the difference in recruiting between Kill/Claeys and Fleck is negligible. Within that spectrum the outcome of wins and losses is dependent upon training and in-game adjustments. At this point there is not enough data to say that Fleck can train and coach within a game to a level that makes his recruits better than any recruiting class we've ever had at the U. The proof will be in the wins and losses.
 



When all is said and done...after the noise of your arguments based upon dissecting star ratings...ranking...merit or lack of merit: the number of Big Ten wins achieved by P J Fleck over the course of his tenure here at Minnesota will answer with precision exactly how well P J was able to compete in the Big Ten Conference with the stars and their rankings of his recruits. It will also factor in his coaching ability. It will tell us how the ball bounced during his time in Minneapolis. We will be able to compare how he did compared to TC, Kill, Brewster, Mason, Wacker, Gutty, Hoax, Salem, Stoll, Murray, Fessler and Bierman, himself.

So, argue it out boys and girls. Call each other names. Insinuate anything you want. Try to prove it with your words. Convince others to join your point of view. Do this all with passion, conviction and strong beliefs. My way takes all the fantasy out of high school multi-star football recruiting at the University of Minnesota and in other spots in the Big Ten Conference. In my method: optimal emphasis is placed on the results of REAL Big Ten Football Games that have actually been played AND completed. I suppose that is rather boring...but: it works.

My way will break it all down into precise percentages and completely rank and rate the effectiveness of guessing how the star ranking system of this era works against the time-tested old method of counting Big Ten wins and contrasting them with Big Ten losses. It can't be valid including ooc games because there is such a variance of relative strength of the southwest, northeast, mountain, little sisters of the poor types of teams the ooc schedule is so notorious for.

In the end, my ranking system will be able to answer all of your star-gazing assumptions and guesses.
A nice utilitarian approach, wren. I give it...3[emoji294]s! [emoji41]
 

All about wins and losses at the end of the day. Could care less about stars or a .8543482 rating.
 

Star gazing will get you a Hayo Carpenter. What you put into your recruiting is what you'll get.

Do the hard work - Network with people who know the recruit, talk to their coaches, school administrators, their parents, ask for their game films, etc... The most important is the live evaluations: bring in kids to camps, go to satellite camps. You may discover the Eric Murrays and the Rashod Batemans. Strike while the iron is hot.

Get sloppy or desparate and you'll get the type of players that recently transferred out of MN. Even then, it is not a hundred percent certain. A great kid gets signed only to find out that the weather and homesickness is too much. These things happen. At the end of the day, if they build relationships with kids, parents, and coaches, you'll are more likely to find a good fit for your program.

Yeah - The ratings, stars or numerical, is for the fans, the marketing people, the talent evaluator sites. Once it is all over, the thing the coaches care about is the kids produce and fit their system.

The ones that don't fit will transfer out. PJ Fleck seems to do a good job about being up front, fair, and honest.

The bottom line as everyone can agree is: The measure of success is victories. There are thousands of suffering fans out there that will want to see the Gophers go to the Rose Bowl.

I personally want the Gophers to break out out of their 5th place perch. Relying on how the players were rated coming in does not wash. Show us the goods.
 
Last edited:

We are getting better athletes on the offensive side of the ball, no question. Rankings don't need to even exist to tell you that. When Georgia HC visits our best WR commit, I think that's pretty telling. It's always hard to tell for lineman though. In general I feel pretty posititve going forward with Fleck's classes. He's doing solid work recruiting B1G players.
 



The one thing that the recruit rankings does, is it is a good "relative" indicator of talent level.

Coaching and player development is what beings you the victories. You can ask the previous Nebraska coaching staff that.

Wisconsin has been able to win with just 6-8 so called 4-Star players with the bulk being high 3-Stars. Their system works. They plug in new players every year. They prove that you can win with mostly 3-Star players. On the other hand, the Gophers averaged about one 4-Star player with a low 80s average composite rating which means they getting mostly leftovers.

Like I have said - if PJ can recruit class like they did in 2018, they are well on their way to making history.
 
Last edited:

Nice, now we have a tread that can take all this stuff out of the other threads.
It is all very simple and you need to pull out the actual numbers that have been posted on numerous occasions. Only a handful of “potential” studs get five stars and they typically only go to a few school and all but 2-3 schools get only 1 or two of them in a class. The four stars are awarded to just a larger handful of players and they go the the same schools that get the five stars players. The two star players are guys the recruiting services basically know nothing about, or have not had distinguished careers in high school, but schools are looking at them. EVERYONE else that is rated is given three stars. With literally 1,500 players each year it is only logical to assume that they are not all equal. If you can’t get that through your thick skull then there is no hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Nice, now we have a tread that can take all this stuff out of the other threads.
It is all very simple and you need to pull out the actual numbers that have been posted on numerous occasions. Only a handful of “potential” studs get five stars and they typically only go to a few school and all but 2-3 schools get only 1 or two of them in a class. The four stars are awarded to just a larger handful of players and they go the the same schools that get the five stars players. The two star players are guys the recruiting services basically know nothing about, or have not had distinguished careers in high school, but schools are looking at them. EVERYONE else that is rated is given three stars. With literally 1,500 players each year it is only logical to assume that they are not all equal. If you can’t get that through your thick skull then there is no hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Got it. The star system is worthless and should never be applied to any of our coaches, past or present.
Just win!
 

Got it. The star system is worthless and should never be applied to any of our coaches, past or present.
Just win!

For P5 schools it is pretty rare to finish in the top 25 without at least one top 25 recruiting class on the roster. It happens, but it's only a few teams each year.
 

For P5 schools it is pretty rare to finish in the top 25 without at least one top 25 recruiting class on the roster. It happens, but it's only a few teams each year.

Last year. Okla St, Wisc, NW, Va Tech, NC State. 5 of 22 P5 in top 25. About 23%.
 


Last year. Okla St, Wisc, NW, Va Tech, NC State. 5 of 22 P5 in top 25. About 23%.

Which means 77% did. So to beat this dead horse again, your chances are significantly higher of being in the top 25 if you have a top 25 recruiting class.
 

Which means 77% did. So to beat this dead horse again, your chances are significantly higher of being in the top 25 if you have a top 25 recruiting class.

Actually 8/25 if you add in the G5 teams. Some of them may have defeated P5...

The original statement was “a few” which most people probably place at 2-3 and certainly less than 5.
 

Yeah, but those teams are terrible. :rolleyes:

:clap:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pbRUTHGLu9s?rel=0&showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Actually 8/25 if you add in the G5 teams. Some of them may have defeated P5...

The original statement was “a few” which most people probably place at 2-3 and certainly less than 5.

And some of those G5 teams may not have finished in the top 25 had they played a full P5 schedule.
 

Actually 8/25 if you add in the G5 teams. Some of them may have defeated P5...

The original statement was “a few” which most people probably place at 2-3 and certainly less than 5.

Yep...said "pretty rare" as well...
 

And some of those G5 teams may not have finished in the top 25 had they played a full P5 schedule.

I don’t disagree that the Top 25 poll is not always representative of the top 25 teams but it probably has a similar correlation as the correlation of recruiting stars to winning programs, and you certainly are a beleiever in that unless I’m misunderstanding something. Some of the G5 teams over the years have defeated pretty good P5 teams and put a bunch of guys in the NFL (Boise and TCU, for example). Not flukes, just really good coaches with an eye for talent.
 

Last year. Okla St, Wisc, NW, Va Tech, NC State. 5 of 22 P5 in top 25. About 23%.

Red Shirt Senior class for VT was top 25, their Senior and Junior classes were top 30. Okie St, no top 25, worst class was 45, had one top 30. Wisconsin no top 25, but all top 45. NW is an anomaly. NC St typically not very good classes, but they're junior and senior classes were top 35. So 4 of the 22 P5 in top 25. I think 2 if not 3 of the 4 show pretty clearly the affects of strong classes.
 

And some of those G5 teams may not have finished in the top 25 had they played a full P5 schedule.

Exactly, we are a P5 team, so I like to look at what it takes for P5 teams to get ranked. Obviously G5 teams can be good, but G5 teams for some conference can recruit head and shoulders above the rest of their conference and only finish with mediocre recruiting classes compared to P5 teams.
 

Red Shirt Senior class for VT was top 25, their Senior and Junior classes were top 30. Okie St, no top 25, worst class was 45, had one top 30. Wisconsin no top 25, but all top 45. NW is an anomaly. NC St typically not very good classes, but they're junior and senior classes were top 35. So 4 of the 22 P5 in top 25. I think 2 if not 3 of the 4 show pretty clearly the affects of strong classes.

Outlier.

So, given that we’re not recruiting at that clip...what now? Roll over and suck our thumbs? Make excuses till the cows come home? Or find a way to win?
 

'Sorry mods. This discussion was off-topic in "MJ Anderson Commits!" thread:



Data shows that is true. Purely based on average composite ratings, Kill's/Claey's best class had an average composite of 0.8427 in 2016. Fleck's 2018 class has an average composite rating of 0.8622 with late corrections. Fleck's 2019 class though is at 0.8454. But, this may change if some players get a later bump in ratings like Faalele, Dunlap, Bateman, Reigelsperger, and Teague all getting late season bumps in their composite ratings last year.

View attachment 5666

On a numerical scale, a 3-Star composite rank is 80-89 (10% players in the nation) while a 4-Star is 90-97 (top 300 players in the nation).

https://247sports.com/Article/247Sports-Rating-Explanation-81574/




So, high 3-Stars could have easily been 4-Stars. The ratings aren't perfect. Upper Midwest recruits, Minnesota recruits, schools that are not geographically located in the hotbeds, etc... may be rated lower based on where the concentration of evaluators are. Who knows.

The important indicators (247Sports) are the team average composite score, and the total number of team points (see attachments).

This year's class has a drop because 2-Star Long snapper Brady Weeks and kicker Camden Lewis each has a composite rating of 0.7781, and the Grey Shirt OT Tyler Cooper has a composite rating of 0.7998. Bear in mind that specialist are usually rated very low as compared to other position players. It looks like PJ Fleck thinks the potential of Tyler Cooper will be much improve and rated higher by the end of his Senior year in HS.

247Sports is projecting that the Gopher's 2020 average composite rating will be around 0.8628 based on the current recruiting data.

The 2017 overall Talent Level Ranking of the Gophers puts them at 12th in the Big Ten and 5th in B1G West (Incidentally, also 5th is their average finish in the standings 2011-2017). The tables below compare the Big Ten Talent Level and the averages for competition years 2015-2017.

View attachment 5667

View attachment 5668

Average composite ratings (with the exception of Nebraska) is a good indicator of finish in the standings.

It seems to correlate really well in the B1G East.

The Gophers average finished in 2015-2017 is 5th. Their average talent level is also 5th.
The data speaks for itself.

It is not so much about four stars. It has more to do with raising the team talent level with more high three stars with a few more four stars with a higher average talent level as Wisconsin has done.

CONCLUSION: If the Gophers continue to recruit talent like they are doing now, they have at least a good shot at a B1G West division title in two or three years.

Of course, this depends on:
1. How the competition do in their recruiting;
2. Player development;
3. How well PJ Fleck and staff can coach;
4. Coaching and system stability.

There is optimism for the future of Gopher Football.

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite?Conference=Big-Ten

Kill's recruiting was fine he just blew it with the QB spot. one game away from the BTW champs
 

Two years ago only 3 P5 teams made it, UNC, Iowa, and Okie State once again. Three years ago it was Arizona, GT, and Wisconsin. So last three years, it's been 4, 3, and 3. Only 8 programs the last 3 years with Okie st and Wisconsin doing it twice.
 




Top Bottom