ADVERTISEMENT

Joshua Sales to Indiana

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!
 
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!
The real rankings should be avg rating per recruit not on total number of recruits.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red hornet
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.


It's a good looking class at this point. Trouble is, the BT is way up in recruiting this year, especially at the bottom........IU, MN, Rutgers, Purdue all better than 4-6 years ago. Illinois will be last in ratings, but since the end of last year they've had 10 guys transfer in, either from high D1 programs or successful players at lower levels. I don't know how many will be eligible this year, but I assume they'll have 3-4 starters out of that group this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMFT and red hornet
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!
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Very good point as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMFT
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMFT and red hornet
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.


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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: red hornet
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.
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.

And no, I'm not lumping Purdue in because I'm willing them to be in that group. In a week, they should be at 3.1, so I'm adding them in advance.
 
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: red hornet
ADVERTISEMENT