|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Jan 19, 2017 19:14:59 GMT -8
The three classes at N prior to MR's arrival averaged 31'st on a national scale. The three classes MR has put together since arriving at N average 27th(+4 Improvement) nationally and all three have been better than the prior: 33rd, 28th, currently 21st. The 3 classes prior to GA at OSU averaged 44th nationally GA's 3 classes so far at OSU average 56th nationally (-12 drop). 63rd, 55th, and currently 49th. So far his best class, this years at 49th is still -5 spots below the three year average (44th) prior to his arrival. Now I'm not anti GA by any means and I'm willing to give him 5 years even longer because a revolving door for a program like OSU is stupid, but I can also look at the facts and accept them like a grown up. Without even accounting for dollars spent and facilities improvements, the numbers suggest strongly MR was a better recruiter at OSU in last 3 season's than GA has been since his arrival. The numbers also strongly suggest MR is a better recruiter at N than the coach he replaced. I like how you chose a random service to skew stats. Use 247 who's ranking are composites of all the sites. Riley's last 3 years average 51st ranked class. 44, 45, 63 Anderson's first 3 years 60, 46, 51 (still fluid) Riley avg 51, Anderson avg 52 Let's also mention they complete different situations the two coaches are trying to recruit to. Riley having 2 winning seasons helped massively with his higher classes. Anderson was coming in off a 5-7 disappointment of season with a senior loaded team recruiting essentially all new recruits for his system. And he's recruiting at the same pace Riley was with winning seasons, with 2 win and 4 win season. That alone indicates Anderson is better recruiter. I'm not s%#tting on Riley, I love the guy and wish him all the success at Nebraska. But he's able to recruit to the name of the school now and that makes his job a thousand times easier. Rather interesting how our lowest ranked class featured: 3M, Nall, Vakameilalo(#1 rated player in Hawaii) , Delp, Lamone Williams(3rd in Hawaii), Crawford, Liuchan, Ugwoegbu, Houston, Willis, Keenan, D. Williams, Haley, etc.... Would we have won a game this year without those players? Your certainly entitled to disagree with me, however I question and call into doubt the accuracy of your claim "it's harder to recruit after a losing season". That's a claim not supported by our recent history. Using 247: 2011 class, following a 5 win season, ranked 43rd. 2012 class, following 2nd straight losing season ranked 44th. 43rd and 44th are both better than GA's best at OSU so far. We can throw out the, it's tougher to recruit after a losing season argument. Our actual recent history domonstrates that's just not true, as shown directly above. We can however definitively say this, GA has had the benefit of a fresh staff and start, the ability to promise playing time to new recruits if deemed necessary without jeopordizing any such promise to existing players he didn't recruit, and he's also had the benefit of more funding, the benefit of new facilities, and the benefit of more fan support than what MR had when he put together the 11' and 12' classes. I'm supporting GA for at least his first 5 years. So this has nothing to do with calling for change or not supporting him, it has everything to do with pointing out recruiting has not improved and it's not necessarily all on the coach as many like to believe. We need to look at the program if we're ever going to actually advance up the recruiting rankings in a meaningful way. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jan 19, 2017 19:57:25 GMT -8
nforkbeav - you seem to have a handle on the numbers, do you know if there are any changes in the number of 4/5 star recruits over the years? Just wondering if maybe sites are more liberally applying stars to kids.....I mean, how else do you explain our average star ranking being at an all time high while our national and conference ranking stays pretty much where it's always been?
|
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Jan 20, 2017 11:11:51 GMT -8
nforkbeav - you seem to have a handle on the numbers, do you know if there are any changes in the number of 4/5 star recruits over the years? Just wondering if maybe sites are more liberally applying stars to kids.....I mean, how else do you explain our average star ranking being at an all time high while our national and conference ranking stays pretty much where it's always been? There are other explanations to account for a classes average star rankings relative to it's standing in rank among conference foes. Using 247Sports, here's a comparison that may or may not(lol)shed some light on that. Let's go back 5 years and compare classes to see if anything stands out. Five Stars2012- 1 (Seumalo) 2017- 0 Four Stars2012- 0 2017- 1 Three Stars2012- 19 2017- 16 Two Star2012- 3 (Rommel Mageo, Garret Owens, Dylan Mafi) 2017- 1 NR2012- 0 2017- 1 247Sports Average Stars2012- 2.96 2017- 2.84 247Sports Average Rating2012- 83.4 2017- 83.5 247Sports Pac 12 Ranking2012- 11 2017- 10 It appears to me these classes are identical twins. If Cal wasn't going through a coaching change it's pretty fair based on their past track record in recruiting to suggest this years class would rank 11th in the P12 right now just like the 2012 class ranked 11th. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Jan 20, 2017 12:04:44 GMT -8
nforkbeav - you seem to have a handle on the numbers, do you know if there are any changes in the number of 4/5 star recruits over the years? Just wondering if maybe sites are more liberally applying stars to kids.....I mean, how else do you explain our average star ranking being at an all time high while our national and conference ranking stays pretty much where it's always been? There are other explanations to account for a classes average star rankings relative to it's standing in rank among conference foes. Using 247Sports, here's a comparison that may or may not(lol)shed some light on that. Let's go back 5 years and compare classes to see if anything stands out. Five Stars2012- 1 (Seumalo) 2017- 0 Four Stars2012- 0 2017- 1 Three Stars2012- 19 2017- 16 Two Star2012- 3 (Rommel Mageo, Garret Owens, Dylan Mafi) 2017- 1 NR2012- 0 2017- 1 247Sports Average Stars2012- 2.96 2017- 2.84 247Sports Average Rating2012- 83.4 2017- 83.5 247Sports Pac 12 Ranking2012- 11 2017- 10 It appears to me these classes are identical twins. If Cal wasn't going through a coaching change it's pretty fair based on their past track record in recruiting to suggest this years class would rank 11th in the P12 right now just like the 2012 class ranked 11th. The numbers will change soon as they have the past 2 weeks. About 2 weeks ago the class was averaging above 84 and trending in high 30s up to 40. The question is what changed? The biggest factor is Aaron Short committed and nobody has gotten around to rating him so his rating affects the average a lot more than say the eventual at least 2 stars he will receive. Other factors affecting the average and class ranking is the commitment then decommitment of Calvin (which happened before they started calculating Short into the averages). Another really big factor in class rankings was the Army bowl game and all the commits during it that bumped up a lot of programs. Another variable that perplexed me was the reduction in the rating of Isaiah Hodgins (must have had to do with where he committed  ). |
|
|
|
Post by oosik on Jan 20, 2017 13:15:27 GMT -8
Riley had 1 advantage as a recruiter:
He ran a prostyle offense that prepared receivers and QB's to play at the next level.
Anderson's offense is still a work in progress and we lost not only QB's with potential, but also had receiver's that struggled in whatever you want to call the offense Anderson was trying to run.
The 2017 coaching changes bring in a better emphasis on a complimentary passing game and I believe that is helping to bring in receivers and hopefully upgrade the QB position. It is frustrating that it took so long to find a true direction and coaches that are more capable of bringing in QB and receiver talent.
I do believe Anderson is/has recruited tougher players for the defense and we should expect improvement.
adjusting to a 3/4 and finding better Athlete's on the defensive line and quicker hybrid DE/LB should = defensive improvement.
The criticism of the poor defensive statistics need to be tempered by the number of injuries and having to be on the field too long because the offense was so incompetent for most of the season.
I thought the defense played better, other than being subject to getting beat badly with mid-range to deep balls over the middle. I blame using Chapelle as an extra linebacker to stop the run leaving the deep middle vulnerable!
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jan 20, 2017 14:16:44 GMT -8
Average time per game the D was on the field in 2016: 29:13
Average time per game the D was on the field in 2014: 28:09
Plays per game the D was on the field in 2016: 74.5
Plays per game the D was on the field in 2014: 70.5
I don't think the D is getting worn down all that much more by spending one more minute defending four more plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavsaregood on Jan 23, 2017 12:55:15 GMT -8
I would like to meet your split personality that is at the same time more like Riley and Andersen, just kidding (I do typos, also). With the way it appeared you are defending yourself it definitely appears that you wanted to have a discussion comparing the 2 coaches. Not trying to be contrary just giving you my impression. The improvement in recruiting is much more subtle that what you are looking for. I do not expect us to overtake most of the teams in the Pac 12 anytime soon. What we are talking about is the national ranking improving from high 40s and 50s to the 30s. Being ranked in the 30s does not give you a better recruiting class than very many Pac 12 teams. It does close the gap and give us significantly better athletes to work with. This is the real reason for the media buzz. Another note: Andersen thus far has had 3 academic casualties in 2 classes (will not count current class because no one is lost yet--although 3 of the highest rated commits are already in school). Wallace and Garcia do not count as lost yet in my book as both have done nothing but redshirt (or something close to this) and are currently listed on the roster. So I look at Wallace and Garcia the same way as any other freshman who redshirted last year. Andersen has a very good track record thus far in getting and keeping athletes eligible who are on campus. This makes me optimistic with Wallace and Garcia. I do not see this as wasteful recruiting, just in the same way that I am satisfied that we recruited of Villamin who had academic issues. Just some of my thoughts. If we consider our real competition as the power 5 conference teams, lets consider that those conferences are the Pac-12, the Big 10, Big 12, ACC and SEC. That is 65 teams. Being ranked in the 30's basically means you are better than half the power 5 teams. I think that is a good spot to shoot to consistently be at if you are OSU. our historic rankings in the 50s and 60's meant we were recruiting in the bottom third at best, and the bottom 10% at worse. with some Mid Majors sneaking in here and there above us. I think it pays to have realistic expectations. long term and immediate. an immediate goal is to have a class in the 30's every year. be better than half the power 5 schools. be... quite frankly, above average! I'll grab a rankings in the 30s any day. I myself will shoot for a class in the 40s year-in and out. If a coach is truly a good one, he can coach up a class in the 40s. 30s means (to me) your team is either a top 25 team or one the cusp of being one. Of course, there are diamonds in the rough and busts but I do look at the rankings of classes. It does mean something to me. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jan 23, 2017 13:43:26 GMT -8
Just a month or 2 ago we were celebrating a top 30 class (#28 at the time IIRC), and if anything the class has only gotten better.... so what happened? why the sudden drop in rating? Seems like to me these rating systems have a vested interest in keeping the largest (ie highest paying) fanbases happy... so we see a recruit of ours slip to a 3 star and the other programs are picking up recruits, and whoops all of a sudden we are back to being in the 40-50 range...
Bottom line... who cares, I still like the class GA has put together, and I still have hope / faith they will take us to the top half of the Pac-12 in the next couple years...
GO BEAVS!
P.S. WHO THE @#*&(@^#(*&@^#(@ CARES HOW RILEY WOULD HAVE RECRUITED HE IS GONE< MOVE ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Jan 23, 2017 15:25:13 GMT -8
Just a month or 2 ago we were celebrating a top 30 class (#28 at the time IIRC), and if anything the class has only gotten better.... so what happened? why the sudden drop in rating? Seems like to me these rating systems have a vested interest in keeping the largest (ie highest paying) fanbases happy... so we see a recruit of ours slip to a 3 star and the other programs are picking up recruits, and whoops all of a sudden we are back to being in the 40-50 range... Bottom line... who cares, I still like the class GA has put together, and I still have hope / faith they will take us to the top half of the Pac-12 in the next couple years... GO BEAVS! P.S. WHO THE @#*&(@^#(*&@^#(@ CARES HOW RILEY WOULD HAVE RECRUITED HE IS GONE< MOVE ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! There probably is some merit to the idea schools with bigger followings receive a little more love. Rankings are fluid however. It makes sense we were ranked higher when Calvin committed and lower when he backed out. That said, we were in the 50's last week and are now at 42nd according to Scout. Recruiting is like a chili cook off, enjoy the process while it's going on, but understand you won't know 100% for sure until down the road if the quality was as good as it tasted going down. |
|
|
|
Post by ostate on Jan 24, 2017 15:11:18 GMT -8
The average class rating information provided by 247Sports has 2016 as the 4th best Oregon State recruiting class and 2017 as the 3rd best (as it stands now) since 2001…
2013 was the best and 2010 is second best…
So CGA, in his first two (real) recruiting classes, has had the 3rd and 4th best recruiting classes Oregon State has seen since 2001… 2017 still pending...
|
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Jan 24, 2017 15:49:49 GMT -8
Riley had 1 advantage as a recruiter: He ran a prostyle offense that prepared receivers and QB's to play at the next level. Anderson's offense is still a work in progress and we lost not only QB's with potential, but also had receiver's that struggled in whatever you want to call the offense Anderson was trying to run. The 2017 coaching changes bring in a better emphasis on a complimentary passing game and I believe that is helping to bring in receivers and hopefully upgrade the QB position. It is frustrating that it took so long to find a true direction and coaches that are more capable of bringing in QB and receiver talent. I do believe Anderson is/has recruited tougher players for the defense and we should expect improvement. adjusting to a 3/4 and finding better Athlete's on the defensive line and quicker hybrid DE/LB should = defensive improvement. The criticism of the poor defensive statistics need to be tempered by the number of injuries and having to be on the field too long because the offense was so incompetent for most of the season. I thought the defense played better, other than being subject to getting beat badly with mid-range to deep balls over the middle. I blame using Chapelle as an extra linebacker to stop the run leaving the deep middle vulnerable! Yet one thing that drove me crazy is Riley could never get the top end QB recruits to come to OS on a regular basis. And that's not a knock on Riley. If my kid was a pro-style QB who had NFL potential I would have had a real short list of coaches I'd want him to go play for, and Riley would be at or near the top. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jan 24, 2017 16:05:18 GMT -8
That's one way of looking at it..... Another way of looking at it is comparatively. This year's 3rd best of the last 17 recruiting classes is considered 47th in the nation, 10th in the Pac-12 by 24/7 sports. The worst class listed is the 2001 class (.7232 average) was the 24th ranked class that year and 5th in the Pac-12. That year, the #2 ranked class in the country (LSU) had an average rating of .7877.... which rates below all but two of our classes in the past 17 years in terms of per player average. That LSU Class included five five stars a four of the top 20 recruits in the nation. Average national rank for Riley II (2003-2014): 47.25 Average national rank for Andersen (2015-17): 52 (if you take out transition year, it's 47.5) Average conference rank for Riley II: 9 Average conference rank for Andersen: 10 (9.5 minus transition year) *DISCLAIMER - THESE FIGURES ARE FROM 24/7 SPORTS AND IN NO WAY REPRESENT SOME SORT OF SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR MIKE RILEY OR HIS RECRUITING METHODS. THEY ARE NOT A KNOCK ON GARY ANDERSEN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. THESE ARE JUST FACTS PRESENTED FOR REFERENCE.
Year
| Avg. Recruit Rank | Nat'l Rank | Conf. Rank | | 2017 | .8352 | 47 | 10 | | 2016 | .8351 | 48 | 9 | | 2015 | .8281 | 61 | 11 | | 2014 | .8137 | 63 | 10 | | 2013 | .8381 | 45 | 8 | | 2012 | .8339 | 44 | 11 | | 2011 | .8259 | 43 | 7 | | 2010 | .8357 | 58 | 11 | | 2009 | .8226 | 50 | 9 | | 2008 | .8166 | 52 | 10 | | 2007 | .8039 | 40 | 7 | | 2006 | .8052 | 33 | 6 | | 2005 | .7710 | 50 | 10 | | 2004 | .8149 | 27 | 8 | | 2003 | .7933 | 62 | 11 | | 2002 | .8094 | 45 | 9 | | 2001 | .7232 | 24 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Jan 24, 2017 17:52:17 GMT -8
That's one way of looking at it..... Another way of looking at it is comparatively. This year's 3rd best of the last 17 recruiting classes is considered 47th in the nation, 10th in the Pac-12 by 24/7 sports. The worst class listed is the 2001 class (.7232 average) was the 24th ranked class that year and 5th in the Pac-12. That year, the #2 ranked class in the country (LSU) had an average rating of .7877.... which rates below all but two of our classes in the past 17 years in terms of per player average. That LSU Class included five five stars a four of the top 20 recruits in the nation. Average national rank for Riley II (2003-2014): 47.25 Average national rank for Andersen (2015-17): 52 (if you take out transition year, it's 47.5) Average conference rank for Riley II: 9 Average conference rank for Andersen: 10 (9.5 minus transition year) *DISCLAIMER - THESE FIGURES ARE FROM 24/7 SPORTS AND IN NO WAY REPRESENT SOME SORT OF SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR MIKE RILEY OR HIS RECRUITING METHODS. THEY ARE NOT A KNOCK ON GARY ANDERSEN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. THESE ARE JUST FACTS PRESENTED FOR REFERENCE.
Year
| Avg. Recruit Rank | Nat'l Rank | Conf. Rank | | 2017 | .8352 | 47 | 10 | | 2016 | .8351 | 48 | 9 | | 2015 | .8281 | 61 | 11 | | 2014 | .8137 | 63 | 10 | | 2013 | .8381 | 45 | 8 | | 2012 | .8339 | 44 | 11 | | 2011 | .8259 | 43 | 7 | | 2010 | .8357 | 58 | 11 | | 2009 | .8226 | 50 | 9 | | 2008 | .8166 | 52 | 10 | | 2007 | .8039 | 40 | 7 | | 2006 | .8052 | 33 | 6 | | 2005 | .7710 | 50 | 10 | | 2004 | .8149 | 27 | 8 | | 2003 | .7933 | 62 | 11 | | 2002 | .8094 | 45 | 9 | | 2001 | .7232 | 24 | 5 |
Interesting stats. I think it is also important to remember that in 2011 the conference went from 10 to 12 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jan 25, 2017 11:00:07 GMT -8
Funny how disclaimers are needed on posts now. Sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jan 25, 2017 11:06:43 GMT -8
Interesting stats. I think it is also important to remember that in 2011 the conference went from 10 to 12 teams. Apparently 24/7 doesn't do historical conference rankings. Still trying to figure out how OSU ranked 11th in the conference in 2003 and 2010. |
|
).
