It is being reported the Joshua Sales has committed to Indiana. A great get.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Purdue didn't want him anyway.
The real rankings should be avg rating per recruit not on total number of recruits.Hard to believe IU still only ranked #11 in rankings. I know we have a small class in total this year and really do trust the staff for getting players they like, so not overly stressed on this. But one day, I'll admit, it would be cool if the article read "This puts IU at #3 in B10" one day.
But for now, very happy about this get!
I don't like how they report class rankings because, like we're seeing with IU right now, that they have a mid-tier B1G avg. recruit rating but a lower tier class ranking. I'm satisfied knowing that that's the case, although it'd surely be nice to be able to land a top 25 class and crow about it a little bit. And I'm happy with the players IU currently has and with what they're bringing in.The real rankings should be avg rating per recruit not on total number of recruits.
I don't like how they report class rankings because, like we're seeing with IU right now, that they have a mid-tier B1G avg. recruit rating but a lower tier class ranking. I'm satisfied knowing that that's the case, although it'd surely be nice to be able to land a top 25 class and crow about it a little bit. And I'm happy with the players IU currently has and with what they're bringing in.
With that said, reporting class rankings the way they do is probably the most accurate. It's just an artifact of the top tier schools being able to bring in 20+ highly rated kids each year because they have (1) attrition where HS stars realize it's a really big pond at that level and (2) the kids who become college stars leaving early for the NFL. And, again being honest, consistently big classes like OSU, UM, Bama, Clemson, etc. bring in probably are better than any 16 person class just based on the laws of large numbers and how they're more likely to get more "hits" out of a class if it has more people in it.
Like it or not, IU just isn't there yet as a program where we see the numbers leaving each year to even let the coaches try and pull a big class in.
I'm sure some nerds out there could throw together something that takes into account avg rating while also doing something to not have the avg skewed by specialists (P, K, LS) and make that list.
Ratings are based on number signed and the quality of recruit. I pay zero attention to overall rating and focus on rating average per recruit. Last year, IU ranked 5th or 6th in conference in that category I believe, and I expect we will be right there again once this class is done.Hard to believe IU still only ranked #11 in rankings. I know we have a small class in total this year and really do trust the staff for getting players they like, so not overly stressed on this. But one day, I'll admit, it would be cool if the article read "This puts IU at #3 in B10" one day.
But for now, very happy about this get!
Biggest issue with ratings for the next couple years is they will be off. Lack of camps and stuff is going to make for a lot more misses and a lot more big ten players in the Mac. Gonna be hard to rate these classes before a couple years down the road when they are actually playing.Ratings are based on number signed and the quality of recruit. I pay zero attention to overall rating and focus on rating average per recruit. Last year, IU ranked 5th or 6th in conference in that category I believe, and I expect we will be right there again once this class is done.
Very good point as wellBiggest issue with ratings for the next couple years is they will be off. Lack of camps and stuff is going to make for a lot more misses and a lot more big ten players in the Mac. Gonna be hard to rate these classes before a couple years down the road when they are actually playing.
Ratings are based on number signed and the quality of recruit. I pay zero attention to overall rating and focus on rating average per recruit. Last year, IU ranked 5th or 6th in conference in that category I believe, and I expect we will be right there again once this class is done.
I definitely think an "ave ranking per recruit" makes more sense than being punished for a smaller class. Hopefully that will be done at the end of recruiting and we can determine at least for IU fans where they stood in the B10. Again, I trust the coaches, like the size and athleticism being added and think IU is definitely tracking/trending in the right direction.
There is going to be that middle group or IU, Purdue, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, and MSU who will all be pretty close in that category.After Sales & Freeman we were #23 on Rivals per recruit, #53 overall....to your point.
Edit: Looking at it today, we're tied at #31 per recruit, #52 overall......but at 3.08 we're very close to Nebraska, who is at #24 with a 3.14 average.
So how does the punter figure into the overall rankings? Is he listed as a 0 or 2 star when he is a very good specialist?After Sales & Freeman we were #23 on Rivals per recruit, #53 overall....to your point.
Edit: Looking at it today, we're tied at #31 per recruit, #52 overall......but at 3.08 we're very close to Nebraska, who is at #24 with a 3.14 average.