Recruiting team rankings

[mushroomgod_1]

SEC dominated.....average ranking for teams in each P5 conference (Rivals):

SEC..............17.7.......5/top 10, including 1 & 2; 13/ top32
Big 10............37.7......MD at #94 distorts a little....3/top 15......6/top 30...11/top 50
Pac 10...........38.4......3/top 20; 4/top 30
ACC...............41.8......UL at #92 distorts a little....2/top 15.....4/top 30....10/top 50
Big 12............41.9......6(out of 10)/top 50

Big 10: UM 9; PSU 11; Neb 14; OSU 24; PUR 26; WIS 27; MSU 31; IU 37; IOWA 41; MN 42; NW 48; RU 54; ILL 70; MD 94

Comments on Big 10.....I would group Purdue, MSU, IU, Iowa & Minnesota together, with Purdue maybe having a little separation because of their top players......WIS really probably has the 5th best class, with UM, PSU, OSU (small class) & Nebraska being easily the top 4.......Poor Lovie, poor Illini.

Other interesting classes:

UL at 92; UCLA at 44; UK at 30; Missouri at 32...our class is very similar to those at UK. Missouri.

 

[IUCX9]

SEC dominated.....average ranking for teams in each P5 conference (Rivals):

SEC..............17.7.......5/top 10, including 1 & 2; 13/ top32
Big 10............37.7......MD at #94 distorts a little....3/top 15......6/top 30...11/top 50
Pac 10...........38.4......3/top 20; 4/top 30
ACC...............41.8......UL at #92 distorts a little....2/top 15.....4/top 30....10/top 50
Big 12............41.9......6(out of 10)/top 50

Big 10: UM 9; PSU 11; Neb 14; OSU 24; PUR 26; WIS 27; MSU 31; IU 37; IOWA 41; MN 42; NW 48; RU 54; ILL 70; MD 94

Comments on Big 10.....I would group Purdue, MSU, IU, Iowa & Minnesota together, with Purdue maybe having a little separation because of their top players......WIS really probably has the 5th best class, with UM, PSU, OSU (small class) & Nebraska being easily the top 4.......Poor Lovie, poor Illini.

Other interesting classes:

UL at 92; UCLA at 44; UK at 30; Missouri at 32...our class is very similar to those at UK. Missouri.

Its really amazing how we are #37 in the country and still #8 in B1G, and 5of7 in the East. Tough sledding for sure.

Purdue, however is #26 nationally, #5 in the B1G and have the 2nd best class in the West!!! They would only be #4 if compared to the East. Talk about institutional advantages playing in that division!!

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel up for a conference/divisional shakeup or realignment.

 

[mk23]

Solid. Good enough to win in the Freaking B1G East?

 

[mk23]

Its really amazing how we are #37 in the country and still #8 in B1G, and 5of7 in the East. Tough sledding for sure.

Purdue, however is #26 nationally, #5 in the B1G and have the 2nd best class in the West!!! They would only be #4 if compared to the East. Talk about institutional advantages playing in that division!!

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel up for a conference/divisional shakeup or realignment.

My feelings exactly. How the heck can the clown at the top continue to let this happen? It’s basically cost the conference a slot in the playoffs the last couple years. I figured that alone was enough to get his attention.

 

[Bowlmania]

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel up for a conference/divisional shakeup or realignment.

Maybe you'll get your wish.
https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff

 

[IUCX9]

Maybe you'll get your wish.
https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff

I hope so.

But I disagree with the premise of the article that the Divisions caused the B1G to miss out on the playoffs. Michigan would have gone if they beat OSU. OSU would have been in had they won at Purdue.

At the end of the day, Purdue screwed the pooch.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Its really amazing how we are #37 in the country and still #8 in B1G, and 5of7 in the East. Tough sledding for sure.

Purdue, however is #26 nationally, #5 in the B1G and have the 2nd best class in the West!!! They would only be #4 if compared to the East. Talk about institutional advantages playing in that division!!

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel up for a conference/divisional shakeup or realignment.

The thing that separates the top teams are quality linemen. In that regard, your class can be highly (or higher ranked) but be heavily loaded at certain positions, like a lot of skill guys, but average in the trenches.

 

[turney333]

The thing that separates the top teams are quality linemen. In that regard, your class can be highly (or higher ranked) but be heavily loaded at certain positions, like a lot of skill guys, but average in the trenches.

That's a pretty good descriptor of Purdue - loaded at certain positions, and average to below average elsewhere (if not bad). In the last 2 classes combined, of their 10 highest rated recruits, 6 have been WRs. In the trenches, they have done well recruiting DL, whereas OL appears to be their biggest weakness in terms of recruiting. DB also is a strength for them, but QB/RB/LB are probably bottom third of the conference.
Purdue's OL recruiting might be the worst in the conference the last 2 years, its a close call between them and Rutgers. So unless Purdue's coaches are flat out incredible at identifying and developing diamonds in the rough on OL, they are going to really struggle there

 

[secondasky]

SEC dominated.....average ranking for teams in each P5 conference (Rivals):

SEC..............17.7.......5/top 10, including 1 & 2; 13/ top32
Big 10............37.7......MD at #94 distorts a little....3/top 15......6/top 30...11/top 50
Pac 10...........38.4......3/top 20; 4/top 30
ACC...............41.8......UL at #92 distorts a little....2/top 15.....4/top 30....10/top 50
Big 12............41.9......6(out of 10)/top 50

Big 10: UM 9; PSU 11; Neb 14; OSU 24; PUR 26; WIS 27; MSU 31; IU 37; IOWA 41; MN 42; NW 48; RU 54; ILL 70; MD 94

Comments on Big 10.....I would group Purdue, MSU, IU, Iowa & Minnesota together, with Purdue maybe having a little separation because of their top players......WIS really probably has the 5th best class, with UM, PSU, OSU (small class) & Nebraska being easily the top 4.......Poor Lovie, poor Illini.

Other interesting classes:

UL at 92; UCLA at 44; UK at 30; Missouri at 32...our class is very similar to those at UK. Missouri.

Purdue did not sign two players which might change their rating. I think they went from 26 to 24.

 

[IUCX9]

Purdue did not sign two players which might change their rating. I think they went from 26 to 24.

Only the top 20 players are calculated for that rankings.

 

[IUCX9]

The thing that separates the top teams are quality linemen. In that regard, your class can be highly (or higher ranked) but be heavily loaded at certain positions, like a lot of skill guys, but average in the trenches.

That's a pretty good descriptor of Purdue - loaded at certain positions, and average to below average elsewhere (if not bad). In the last 2 classes combined, of their 10 highest rated recruits, 6 have been WRs. In the trenches, they have done well recruiting DL, whereas OL appears to be their biggest weakness in terms of recruiting. DB also is a strength for them, but QB/RB/LB are probably bottom third of the conference.
Purdue's OL recruiting might be the worst in the conference the last 2 years, its a close call between them and Rutgers. So unless Purdue's coaches are flat out incredible at identifying and developing diamonds in the rough on OL, they are going to really struggle there

Excellent points.

Their OL last year was made up of 2*s and transfers from MAC. Despite that, they did generate the #20 rated offense per S&P+ (#36 Rushing, #24, Passing, and #7 in explosiveness).

My point was that they live in the West Division, so they are not going up against UM, OSU, PSU every year. Relatively speaking, they have the #2 talent in their division. They don't need top flight OL to make hay against their schedule, generate yards, score points and wins. Unfortunately we do because of our division, and it is hard not to get more top OL this class in order to compete in the East.

 

[destewart]

SEC dominated.....average ranking for teams in each P5 conference (Rivals):

SEC..............17.7.......5/top 10, including 1 & 2; 13/ top32
Big 10............37.7......MD at #94 distorts a little....3/top 15......6/top 30...11/top 50
Pac 10...........38.4......3/top 20; 4/top 30
ACC...............41.8......UL at #92 distorts a little....2/top 15.....4/top 30....10/top 50
Big 12............41.9......6(out of 10)/top 50

Big 10: UM 9; PSU 11; Neb 14; OSU 24; PUR 26; WIS 27; MSU 31; IU 37; IOWA 41; MN 42; NW 48; RU 54; ILL 70; MD 94

Comments on Big 10.....I would group Purdue, MSU, IU, Iowa & Minnesota together, with Purdue maybe having a little separation because of their top players......WIS really probably has the 5th best class, with UM, PSU, OSU (small class) & Nebraska being easily the top 4.......Poor Lovie, poor Illini.

Other interesting classes:

UL at 92; UCLA at 44; UK at 30; Missouri at 32...our class is very similar to those at UK. Missouri.

Purdue and Wisconsin both have 15 players with ratings of 5.6 or higher.

 

[Boiler813]

That's a pretty good descriptor of Purdue - loaded at certain positions, and average to below average elsewhere (if not bad). In the last 2 classes combined, of their 10 highest rated recruits, 6 have been WRs. In the trenches, they have done well recruiting DL, whereas OL appears to be their biggest weakness in terms of recruiting. DB also is a strength for them, but QB/RB/LB are probably bottom third of the conference.
Purdue's OL recruiting might be the worst in the conference the last 2 years, its a close call between them and Rutgers. So unless Purdue's coaches are flat out incredible at identifying and developing diamonds in the rough on OL, they are going to really struggle there

OL signings last 2 years
Purdue signed 7, 5 of them 3 stars
Indiana signed 5, 4 of them 3 stars
Rutgers signed 6, 4 of them 3 stars

 

[turney333]

OL signings last 2 years
Purdue signed 7, 5 of them 3 stars
Indiana signed 5, 4 of them 3 stars
Rutgers signed 6, 4 of them 3 stars

OL regardless of stars with another power 5 offer
IU 5 of 5
Rutgers 4 of 6
Purdue 3 of 7

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

OL signings last 2 years
Purdue signed 7, 5 of them 3 stars
Indiana signed 5, 4 of them 3 stars
Rutgers signed 6, 4 of them 3 stars

I think the point here guys was that some teams get top heavy on skill guys that offset or disguise those final rankings. I didn’t mention Purdue but it is a pretty dead-on example this year. The big thing I believe that Rivals and other services completely overlook is competing offers. If they could validate that and factor in, it totally changes the narrative.

A 3 star LB from Florida with confirmed offers from eight Power 5 schools inside the top 25 is not the same as a 3 star LB from the Midwest with 2 Power 5 and 8 MAC offers. That’s a general example. I’m not describing anyone particularly in this class.

 

[IndyIUFan66]

OL regardless of stars with another power 5 offer
IU 5 of 5
Rutgers 4 of 6
Purdue 3 of 7

That is the most intriguing stat. The PU kids are all ranked higher yet 4 of 7 did't have another power 5 offer? Odd.

Fact is, I'm not so sure there's a ton of difference between a 5.7 & 5.4 3 star kid given there is so much subjectivity involved. IU is getting quality players and stacking. Plus new OC believe will elevate the offense, which I also think will help greatly with the defense. All TBD but bullish!

 

[Indianaftw]

If you go by star rating IU has the 31st best class which is good for 8th in the BIG and 1 spot ahead of purdue...jus sayin. Also keep in mind we only signed 21 players.

 

[secondasky]

Only the top 20 players are calculated for that rankings.

Yes I did not notice it was Rivals. Wondering if it would effect 247 ratings

 

[fpeaugh]

My feelings exactly. How the heck can the clown at the top continue to let this happen? It’s basically cost the conference a slot in the playoffs the last couple years. I figured that alone was enough to get his attention.

How in the world did it cost the Big Ten a spot in the playoffs? The only team remotely in the discussion for the playoffs this year was OSU. And they lost to Purdue from the west...by 29!

They didn’t lose to any East teams. It sure didn’t cost them a playoff chance.

 

[jddpt06]

Its really amazing how we are #37 in the country and still #8 in B1G, and 5of7 in the East. Tough sledding for sure.

Purdue, however is #26 nationally, #5 in the B1G and have the 2nd best class in the West!!! They would only be #4 if compared to the East. Talk about institutional advantages playing in that division!!

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel up for a conference/divisional shakeup or realignment.

As popular as this excuse is, the fact remains that IU hasn't fared much better against the West than we have the East. Over the past 10 seasons, IU has exactly 1 win against a West opponent not named Illinois or Purdue. Until the coaching staff can pull an upset or two, it really doesn't matter what division we are in.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Purduee and Wisconsin both have 15 players with ratings of 5.6 or higher.

On the surface that sounds good but....is a 3 star hotel in Carbondale, Illinois the same as a 3 star hotel on the beach in Aruba?

The old adage “all stars are not created equal” applies. I understand that Rivals and 247 cannot do the legwork or have the bandwidth to evaluate 3 and 2-Star recruits across the nation. The 5.9 and 6.0 guys are pretty easy calls as they go with the national consensus.

There is a reason Bama ranks where they do. You and I both know why: 5 star OL and DL are the core to build on.

 

[IUCX9]

On the surface that sounds good but....is a 3 star hotel in Carbondale, Illinois the same as a 3 star hotel on the beach in Aruba?

The old adage “all stars are not created equal” applies. I understand that Rivals and 247 cannot do the legwork or have the bandwidth to evaluate 3 and 2-Star recruits across the nation. The 5.9 and 6.0 guys are pretty easy calls as they go with the national consensus.

There is a reason Bama ranks where they do. You and I both know why: 5 star OL and DL are the core to build on.

How do you feel about our OL haul? 3 stars and a 2 star. No 4 star linemen.

 

[BayernFan]

I thought the leaders/legends lineup was fair

 

[coachv jr]

Its really amazing how we are #37 in the country and still #8 in B1G, and 5of7 in the East. Tough sledding for sure.

Purdue, however is #26 nationally, #5 in the B1G and have the 2nd best class in the West!!! They would only be #4 if compared to the East. Talk about institutional advantages playing in that division!!

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel up for a conference/divisional shakeup or realignment.

the problem is we are the only school in the league that feels that way and we carry no weight for obvious reasons

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

How do you feel about our OL haul? 3 stars and a 2 star. No 4 star linemen.

Not a game changer, immediately that is. Guess they will have to coach them up. No worse than most of the Big Ten. One guy is a long snapper, so not sure I count him as a lineman as he is a specialist. You look at the teams not in the top 3 and they are all pretty similar in the OL.

Penn State had 2 OL, both 4 stars.
Michigan took 6 OL and had 4 of them as 4 stars. That’s why they are where they are.

 

[IUCX9]

the problem is we are the only school in the league that feels that way and we carry no weight for obvious reasons

Unfortunately you are right in that regard.

 

[IUCX9]

Not a game changer, immediately that is. Guess they will have to coach them up. No worse than most of the Big Ten. One guy is a long snapper, so not sure I count him as a lineman as he is a specialist. You look at the teams not in the top 3 and they are all pretty similar in the OL.

Penn State had 2 OL, both 4 stars.
Michigan took 6 OL and had 4 of them as 4 stars. That’s why they are where they are.

My thoughts too. We can develop some of these guys into productive linemen, but it will take time. Time for Hiller to go to work. Or maybe Deboer can scheme around it some.

 

[Hoosiers Rising]

As popular as this excuse is, the fact remains that IU hasn't fared much better against the West than we have the East. Over the past 10 seasons, IU has exactly 1 win against a West opponent not named Illinois or Purdue. Until the coaching staff can pull an upset or two, it really doesn't matter what division we are in.

That is a popular rebuttal but the fact is we have to play that schedule in addition to playing those teams in the west. That is something the teams in the west don't have to do. I'm not complaining or excuse making. I like the way things are and hope it doesn't change as I believe we are making progress. We benefit from being in the east, players come here to play against the east. How many west teams beat us in recruiting this year, 2? If we were in the west we would probably be pulling in classes that would rank in the bottom 2 of the conference. We need to win those games against equal or better teams. I believe that's coming and just hope the conference doesn't throw a monkey wrench in it.

 

[crossfire74]

SEC dominated.....average ranking for teams in each P5 conference (Rivals):

SEC..............17.7.......5/top 10, including 1 & 2; 13/ top32
Big 10............37.7......MD at #94 distorts a little....3/top 15......6/top 30...11/top 50
Pac 10...........38.4......3/top 20; 4/top 30
ACC...............41.8......UL at #92 distorts a little....2/top 15.....4/top 30....10/top 50
Big 12............41.9......6(out of 10)/top 50

Big 10: UM 9; PSU 11; Neb 14; OSU 24; PUR 26; WIS 27; MSU 31; IU 37; IOWA 41; MN 42; NW 48; RU 54; ILL 70; MD 94

Comments on Big 10.....I would group Purdue, MSU, IU, Iowa & Minnesota together, with Purdue maybe having a little separation because of their top players......WIS really probably has the 5th best class, with UM, PSU, OSU (small class) & Nebraska being easily the top 4.......Poor Lovie, poor Illini.

Other interesting classes:

UL at 92; UCLA at 44; UK at 30; Missouri at 32...our class is very similar to those at UK. Missouri.

Just a little note...if you add Tuttle, our ranking would be #33. I know we can't, but would put us right there with others. Also, Purdue is lofty because they signed more people. We still beat them in average stars per recruit, which is what you really need to look at vs the total number, which increases by the more you sign.

Going by the average star ranking the standings would be as follows for the Big Ten.
1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. Penn State
4. Nebraska
5. Wisconsin
6. Michigan State (3.11 avg)
7. Indiana (3.1 avg) so basically tied with MSU
8. Purdue (3.0)
9. Northwestern
10. Iowa
11. Minnesota
12. Rutgers
13. Illinois

To me, this is a truer ranking than the overall because it's not based on numbers of kids. IU is basically 6th here...big time class!

 

[Bowlmania]

Just a little note...if you add Tuttle, our ranking would be #33. I know we can't, but would put us right there with others. Also, Purdue is lofty because they signed more people. We still beat them in average stars per recruit, which is what you really need to look at vs the total number, which increases by the more you sign.

Going by the average star ranking the standings would be as follows for the Big Ten.
1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. Penn State
4. Nebraska
5. Wisconsin
6. Michigan State (3.11 avg)
7. Indiana (3.1 avg) so basically tied with MSU
8. Purdue (3.0)
9. Northwestern
10. Iowa
11. Minnesota
12. Rutgers
13. Illinois

To me, this is a truer ranking than the overall because it's not based on numbers of kids. IU is basically 6th here...big time class!

This is new territory for us, and I'm definitely liking the lay of the land.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

Just a little note...if you add Tuttle, our ranking would be #33. I know we can't, but would put us right there with others. Also, Purdue is lofty because they signed more people. We still beat them in average stars per recruit, which is what you really need to look at vs the total number, which increases by the more you sign.

Going by the average star ranking the standings would be as follows for the Big Ten.
1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. Penn State
4. Nebraska
5. Wisconsin
6. Michigan State (3.11 avg)
7. Indiana (3.1 avg) so basically tied with MSU
8. Purdue (3.0)
9. Northwestern
10. Iowa
11. Minnesota
12. Rutgers
13. Illinois

To me, this is a truer ranking than the overall because it's not based on numbers of kids. IU is basically 6th here...big time class!

Good info. I really like our class and would rather have 3 stars from Florida and Georgia over 4 stars from Michigan or Illinois or Midwest. Just think they play higher level of competition day in and day out,

 

[IUCX9]

Just a little note...if you add Tuttle, our ranking would be #33. I know we can't, but would put us right there with others. Also, Purdue is lofty because they signed more people. We still beat them in average stars per recruit, which is what you really need to look at vs the total number, which increases by the more you sign.

Going by the average star ranking the standings would be as follows for the Big Ten.
1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. Penn State
4. Nebraska
5. Wisconsin
6. Michigan State (3.11 avg)
7. Indiana (3.1 avg) so basically tied with MSU
8. Purdue (3.0)
9. Northwestern
10. Iowa
11. Minnesota
12. Rutgers
13. Illinois

To me, this is a truer ranking than the overall because it's not based on numbers of kids. IU is basically 6th here...big time class!

I like this a lot. However, it seems we are penalized for Juan Harris at 0 stars and our new LS at 2stars even though he is a 5star on Khols kicking. Can you take those two out and see where we land? If it's too much work, don't worry about it! Good info!

As an FYI, Rivals only counts the top 20 players in a class as a way to normalize class size disparity among 120 FBS schools. So Purdue can ignore its plethora of 2 stars.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

I like this a lot. However, it seems we are penalized for Juan Harris at 0 stars and our new LS at 2stars even though he is a 5star on Khols kicking. Can you take those two out and see where we land? If it's too much work, don't worry about it! Good info!

As an FYI, Rivals only counts the top 20 players in a class as a way to normalize class size disparity among 120 FBS schools. So Purdue can ignore its plethora of 2 stars.

So if you add Tittle or if we would have added one more guy and able to subtract both then where do we fall? But glad we still have ability to possibly add grad transfers

 

[crossfire74]

I like this a lot. However, it seems we are penalized for Juan Harris at 0 stars and our new LS at 2stars even though he is a 5star on Khols kicking. Can you take those two out and see where we land? If it's too much work, don't worry about it! Good info!

As an FYI, Rivals only counts the top 20 players in a class as a way to normalize class size disparity among 120 FBS schools. So Purdue can ignore its plethora of 2 stars.

There's no perfect rating system which is why I pay little attention to stars/rankings, but looking at the average stars is a more true judgement than total points. Harris was a 4 star coming out of HS, but Rivals put his as a 3 star now. Wracher is a 5 star according to Kohls, so if you put Tuttle's 4 and Wracher's 5 star into play, we'd average 3.27 and that would put you ahead of Michigan State Wisconsin, ranking us at #22 in the country. So that should tell you the kind of talent we are pulling in that we are right there with those schools now.

 

[Crossblock]

How do you feel about our OL haul? 3 stars and a 2 star. No 4 star linemen.

I don't think you should put too much emphasis on star ratings for offensive linemen. In my opinion this is the toughest position to project and the toughest position to learn in college. Many highly rated linemen in High School have been able to dominate due to size and strength alone and haven't developed foot work. A number of recruits are underweight for college linemen, but have the body build to put on weight and become effective starters. Sometimes a player comes in recruited for a different position and the coaching staff sees the body build and potential to bulk up and get on the field sooner(e.g. David Edwards University of Wisconsin came in as a high school qb and was projected as a Tight End or Linebacker when recruited. Wisconsin bulked him up to play offensive line, and he is now projected as a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick). In any event very few linemen come in and play significantly as Freshmen, and it is rare for one to dominate immediately.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

There's no perfect rating system which is why I pay little attention to stars/rankings, but looking at the average stars is a more true judgement than total points. Harris was a 4 star coming out of HS, but Rivals put his as a 3 star now. Wracher is a 5 star according to Kohls, so if you put Tuttle's 4 and Wracher's 5 star into play, we'd average 3.27 and that would put you ahead of Michigan State Wisconsin. So that should tell you the kind of talent we are pulling in that we are right there with those schools now.

I agree I like to see who else has offered. Not really sure sometimes how they come up with the stars.

 

[Indianaftw]

Good info. I really like our class and would rather have 3 stars from Florida and Georgia over 4 stars from Michigan or Illinois or Midwest. Just think they play higher level of competition day in and day out,

Yes but this will open your eyes some. While overall there are alot of good teams in Florida here is the top conferences in high school football in the last ranking I can find 2016

http://www.maxpreps.com/news/s-dztG...est-high-school-football-leagues-for-2016.htm

Heres 2013 some of the same leagues AND YES the MIC right here in Indy is solid!

http://www.maxpreps.com/news/2ylOE8...igh-school-football-leagues-in-the-nation.htm

I don't care what anyone says about the MIC. Its damn tough to make it through Ben Davis, Warren Central, Carmel, and Center Grove

 

[crossfire74]

How do you feel about our OL haul? 3 stars and a 2 star. No 4 star linemen.

OL are the hardest to judge in my opinion. Rivals, like other rating services knows that the OSU's and Michigan's of the world produce a lot of pro linemen, so when those schools offer, it's automatically a 4 star rating. But the rule of thumb for recruiting classes is if 50% of them produce and play significant minutes, then it's deemed successful by the staff. Lineman have the biggest bust rates. There's plenty of 3 and 2 star kids that are pros.

I think our OL class is solid but they will need development time. We shall see how they do, but there's no guarantee any of those 4 star kids produce either.

 

[Indianaftw]

Man all this talk of OL...

Heres a great example. COY CRONK. 3 star kid (upper 3 star) comes to IU and starts as a true (rare for any OL). Now if he were on OSU, Michi, or Psu would he have started year 1? I highly doubt it. He would have redshirted and this year be a junior rather than a senior. By his senior year at these other schools think about how much more of a beast he would be and how much more polished.

Thats what were up against. We stick these kids in the system and allow a couple years of development.

A Good Example

Britt Beery...lower 3 star DL and moved to OL. Redshirted, last year played his 4 games and this year as a redshirt sophomore. He has had 3 full years in a college level weight program and drills will be ready to start competing. He has 3 years left to play and should start as a junior and senior. JMHO

 

[td75]

I did some very quick research a year ago and found to my surprise, that Iowa and Wisconsin didn't necessarily trot out that many highly ranked offensive linemen out of high school. We often point to Feeney and Spriggs, but many of their starters were ranked well below those two guys.

For whatever reasons, those places do a wonderful job developing the kids they sign. They routinely mold a two star player into a 2+ year starter who often achieves All Big Ten status. We just haven't done that nearly as well as those places.

I harp on this because if they can take players who are very often ranked lower than people we bring in and develop them into NFL caliber, then what the hell are we doing?