I know I am bringing an older thread back up, but some counter points to arguments on here:
1. More players in a class is more opportunity to find diamonds in the rough, so taking 25 vs 21 is always preferred unless all 21 are 5 and 4 stars.
The NCAA hard cap 25 per year is what is bringing SEC teams like Alabama back to the pack. They can't take the 30 a year like they all used to and weed out the busts. It truly creates the biggest imbalance.
That said taking more if possible is always the best recruiting method, so it should weigh into a class' ranking.
2. Offers don't always matter either, because if a kid gets an offer in March and accepts it then often times no other Power 5 offer that player. Timing of the offer and acceptance of said offer also plays a roll.
It also effects rankings, because players no longer go to camps and no evaluators eyeball them. Coaches love to keep recruits out of the limelight if possible (really hard in this day and age).
Not all offers are commitable depending on timing either. So sometimes offers that were made fill up and a kid that had 8 offers in September really only has 2 offers in December. Kids with 5.4 to 5.6 ratings turn out to be great or busts equally. There really isn't a ton to distinguish them.
Also recruiting services have less scouts in certain areas so more kids fall through the cracks. You are advocating that Sanguinetti are better gets than Beau and Sampson when you say a FL 3* is better than a Midwest 4*. I'd say with more coverage in the South their players are more accurately ranked. Its why players like Rondale Moore who barely got scouted get a 3*. They look at the height and not enough of what they do on the field, because their isn't time with limited staff in the area.
However Dave Lackford, the local Kentucky guy, says Rondale is the biggest rockstar out of Kentucky in a long time and is a steal. He saw him, and I think the results back up his eyeballs.
3. East vs West. Sure you guys have 4 impossibly hard games in MSU, MI, OSU and PSU, but you also have terrible records against, Iowa, Wisc, Nebby and NW, too which are also all hard games no matter who you are. 2 years in a row the West put OSU out of the playoffs, so it didn't matter who was in what division. Purdue still always seems to play 2 out of MSU, Mich, OSU and PSU and still always have to play Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and NW, too.
The difference is that Purdue usually plays 2 P5 schools outside conference, too. How often does IU do that? All BIG schedules are hard. We aren't the murders' row the SEC is, but top to bottom we are clearly 2nd.
As an outside observer, I think your program is getting better, but so is Purdue and all the BIG (maybe minus IL and Rutgers), but with all the BTN money, we all should be improving. I think what both IU and Purdue need to improve upon is consistently bringing in large classes with top 40 rankings. It is how you build consistent classes and consistently win.
Right now there isn't enough consistency in either program. Thats why I think either could go 4-8 or 8-4 next year, because neither of us have enough depth to avoid being ruined by key injuries.
Your program is no longer the laughing stock of the BIG or all of college football, but you still haven't reached above average yet either. Here is to hoping both our programs get there in the next couple of seasons.
I respect all IU football fans, because you aren't reversible jacket trash. Please crush Captain Khaki's next season. You guys are due.