How to Improve Recruiting?

[NCDucks09]

How to Improve Recruiting?

Win P10 Championships.

-Check

Go to and win BCS games.

-Almost

Establish a top notch defense.

-N.Allioti

Convince Mother Nature to change the weather in Eugene.

-Global Warming

[Duck07]

How to Improve Recruiting?

Win P10 Championships.

-Check

Go to and win BCS games.

-Almost

Establish a top notch defense.

-N.Allioti

Convince Mother Nature to change the weather in Eugene.

-Global Warming

An upgrade here would help.

[buckmarkduck]

Maybe, just maybe, our coaches know how to evaluate better than Scout or Rivals. Check out 42 and 58.

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p= ... 11&yr=2008

[nehalem]

Did you notice #1 was Darrel Scott-what a bust that was. And Harper at 34 and Poole just below James. I like going back and looking at historical sports facts, reminds me of when I used to study my baseball cards.

[briarduck]

Did you notice #1 was Darrel Scott-what a bust that was. And Harper at 34 and Poole just below James. I like going back and looking at historical sports facts, reminds me of when I used to study my baseball cards.

And Mark Ingram at number 58 a 3 star...that surprises me I would have guessed that Alabama would have only taken higher rated backs!

[NCDucks09]

I've done a statistical study on these *star* ratings and posted it on here before, but basically, ratings 1-4 means nothing, there is no correlation between that rating and how well that player performs in college. The only rating that has a good correlation of measuring college performance from HS is the 5 star. But that seems logical, as it's usually easy to tell the cream of the crop apart from the rest. Everywhere else is a crap-shoot.

[nehalem]

I've done a statistical study on these *star* ratings and posted it on here before, but basically, ratings 1-4 means nothing, there is no correlation between that rating and how well that player performs in college. The only rating that has a good correlation of measuring college performance from HS is the 5 star. But that seems logical, as it's usually easy to tell the cream of the crop apart from the rest. Everywhere else is a crap-shoot.

I remember and it makes sense to me. The 2nd s in sense should be a c-sence. Always irritated me.

[Supreme]

Did you notice #1 was Darrel Scott-what a bust that was. And Harper at 34 and Poole just below James. I like going back and looking at historical sports facts, reminds me of when I used to study my baseball cards.

And Mark Ingram at number 58 a 3 star...that surprises me I would have guessed that Alabama would have only taken higher rated backs!

First and foremost, Scout is widely considered the least credible of the three major recruiting services. He was a 4* running back on both rivals and ESPN. Secondly, regardless of how people feel about start rankings, it is a fact that elite recruiting classes translate into elite programs and on field production. As I said, the last 7 national Champions had at least one #1 ranked recruiting class. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, they've each had two. USC, Bama, Florida, and LSU. Texas and Ohio State, who played in two of those NC games, also annually brings in elite level classes.

I know people hate to admit it, but star rankings matter.

[buckmarkduck]

Not that I don't want to get the #1 recruiting class, but in 2005 rivals had the top 5 as SC, FSU, OU, Tenn, and Nebraska. Yet out of those 5 only 1 finished the year in the top 10, 1 finished at 500 (UT), FSU did so good they got a legend fired and OU finished with and 8-5 record. None of those teams even won their conference title.

Over the last 6 years Tennessee has finished with a top 10 class (rivals) 3 times, yet they where the ones on Saturday crying we don't have depth. It's all about gettin the players that fit this system. Again UO is much like Nebraska in the 80's and 90's, we need the right personnel for OUR system not the system that SC is running.

[Supreme]

Not that I don't want to get the #1 recruiting class, but in 2005 rivals had the top 5 as SC, FSU, OU, Tenn, and Nebraska. Yet out of those 5 only 1 finished the year in the top 10, 1 finished at 500 (UT), FSU did so good they got a legend fired and OU finished with and 8-5 record. None of those teams even won their conference title.

Over the last 6 years Tennessee has finished with a top 10 class (rivals) 3 times, yet they where the ones on Saturday crying we don't have depth. It's all about gettin the players that fit this system. Again UO is much like Nebraska in the 80's and 90's, we need the right personnel for OUR system not the system that SC is running.

To be fair, Tennessee has had 3 different coaching staffs over the last three years. Their 08 class was ranked 35th, so they haven't had 3 straight years of top 10 classes. Also, they've had 9 players transfer or be booted off the team from the 09 class.

WVU get players that fit their system as well. Statistics still show that elite recruiting translates into elite programs.

[briarduck]

Did you notice #1 was Darrel Scott-what a bust that was. And Harper at 34 and Poole just below James. I like going back and looking at historical sports facts, reminds me of when I used to study my baseball cards.

And Mark Ingram at number 58 a 3 star...that surprises me I would have guessed that Alabama would have only taken higher rated backs!

First and foremost, Scout is widely considered the least credible of the three major recruiting services. He was a 4* running back on both rivals and ESPN. Secondly, regardless of how people feel about start rankings, it is a fact that elite recruiting classes translate into elite programs and on field production. As I said, the last 7 national Champions had at least one #1 ranked recruiting class. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, they've each had two. USC, Bama, Florida, and LSU. Texas and Ohio State, who played in two of those NC games, also annually brings in elite level classes.

I know people hate to admit it, but star rankings matter.

I was surprised is all but it does show you can't really tell who is going to be the next great. YES 5 star guys tend to have more success but all I care about is talent and then developing that talent.

BTW its easy to point out the "top historic" programs and there respective recruiting classes being so great when usually it coincides with very good recruiting pipe-lines in there region. As we get farther away from the scholarship limit rule change we are going to see more and more parity because of the filtering of talent and the kids of today want to be "the man" sooner and don't want to wait for it. Certain schools will always have an advantage BUT it won't be as certain year in year out.

I really like what Oregon and CK are doing with our program and I think we can agree our future is very bright!

GO DUCKS!!