Monday, August 31, 2015

How Narduzzi's class currently compares to past Pitt classes

2002
Walt Harris 6th class
Avg. per recruit- 44th
Rivals ratings system- 39th

2003
Walt Harris 7th class
Avg. per recruit- 43
Rivals ratings system- 34

2004
Walt Harris 8th class
Avg. per recruit- 78
Rivals ratings system- 74

2005
Dave Wannstedt 1st class
Avg. per recruit- 49
Rivals ratings system- 38

2006
Dave Wannstedt 2nd class
Avg. per recruit- 22
Rivals ratings system- 21

2007
Dave Wannstedt 3rd class
Avg. per recruit- 25
Rivals ratings system- 26

2008
Dave Wannstedt 4th class
Avg. per recruit- 19
Rivals Ratings system- 28

2009
Dave Wannstedt 5th class
Avg. per recruit- 38
Rivals Ratings system- 47

2010
Dave Wannstedt 6th class
Avg. per recruit- 29
Rivals Ratings system- 33

2011
Todd Graham only class
Avg. per recruit- 62
Rivals Ratings system- 59

2012
Paul Chryst 1st class
Avg. per recruit- 26
Rivals Ratings system- 47

2013
Paul Chryst 2nd class
Avg. per recruit- 53
Rivals Ratings system- 35

2014
Paul Chryst 3rd class
Avg. per recruit- 30
Rivals Ratings system- 44

2015
Pat Narduzzi 1st class
Avg. per recruit- 49
Rivals Ratings system- 66

2016
Pat Narduzzi 2nd class
Avg. per recruit- 42
Rivals Ratings system- 63


I consider average per recruit the better system, and the reasons why have been covered in many places before. If Pitt merely finished their class with mostly 2 star recruits they will go up in the ratings. That makes no sense.

To use just one example of how silly the system is, WVU is currently ranked No. 28 in their ratings system, even though they have zero 5 stars and one 4 star (both like Pitt), but they also have five 2-stars compared to two 2- stars for Pitt. The difference is that WVU has 19 commits compared to Pitt's 10. Pitt has 80% of their recruits currently that are 3 or 4 stars. WVU has 74% of their recruits that are 3 or 4 stars. But WVU is No. 28 in the rankings whereas Pitt is No. 63. How much sense does that make?

Clemson has eight 4 stars and three 3 stars in their class, with one player not rated because he is at a prep school and didn't get ranked. Rivals has them at No. 20. In ratings per recruit Clemson would be No. 3. Obviously they are more likely to be No. 3 with that class, but they are penalized for only having 12 players in the class.

The most obvious example is California. They have just one 4-star, but also four 2-stars. They are ranked No. 17, according to Rivals rankings because they have 17 3-stars. Their class is 82% 3 or 4 star players, only 2% more than Pitt. In average per player they are No. 45, three spots below Pitt. Basically, they get rewarded for having more committed players, even though all of those extra players are 2 and 3 star prospects.  It's not like Pitt will not finish their class at all, or finish with all 2-star prospects. Most will probably be 3 stars with maybe another one or two 4 star prospects thrown in.

Bottom line, you shouldn't get penalized for having less players in your class because all classes will be maxed out.  Some may only have room for 16 and some may have room for 25 or more. Quality should matter more than quantity and that's why average per recruit is the most likely indicator of how strong a class projects on paper.

That leads us to Narduzzi's current class, which at No. 42 is good, but nothing special. In fact, on paper Chryst had two higher rated classes. But, this is where even average per recruit doesn't tell the entire story since 10 of Chryst's 11 four star prospects were offensive players, and the one defensive player was Deysean Rippy.  By the way, as an aside, Mark Dantonio's first full class at Michigan State was No. 46 in average per recruit.

If Narduzzi lands Damar Hamlin, along with various 3-star star recruits, the class will be around No. 35, which is a good first full class. But the 2017 class, in which Narduzzi's staff will have two full years to recruit, can, and should, be even better.

19 comments:

  1. This (2016) is Narduzzi's first year, not 2015, also a long way to go on this year's class, so the 2016 "rankings" are pretty meaningless thus far. Nonetheless, good write up on the history. Overall, Wannstedt wasn't a very good coach, but he was a really solid recruiter. Time will tell, but I suspect Franklin will fall into the same category for psu.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's first recruiting year in 2015. This is an article on recruiting classes.

      Delete
  2. Your logic is off. On signing day, you can go by Avg Ranking per recruit. However, it is impossible to judge where Pitt will land as it currently stands by Avg Recruit. Could they land Hamlin and other 3 star recruits, absolutely. However, they may also have to reach for some 2 stars considering many of Pitt's targets on the OLine, TE, DLine, and LB are off the board. They more than likely will sign 10 more players and if you look at Chris Peak's offer list many that remain are 2 stars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My logic isn't off at all because I factored that in. They probably will get another 2 star or two. But they will still be in the 30s because the rest of the class will mostly be 3-stars, a 4-star in Hamlin, and some of their 2 and 3 stars will get upgraded.

      Delete
  3. Why not use 24/7 rather than Rivals

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because nobody takes that site seriously. I don't like all of them but Rivals is the only one that's at least halfway competent.

      Delete
    2. Use their composite. It takes into account all the major sites rankings, evening out the rough spots.

      Delete
  4. Hey Chris. Where do u see our ceiling realistically in recruiting over the coming years? I could see us in the top 25 regularly but not top 10. What do u think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pitt used to finish in the top 5 regularly as late as Mike Gottfried, but let's be honest, that's when they admitted players they wouldn't admit now.

      I think you're right, though. They should be in the 20s and 30s if they have routine success on the field. Of course if they end up being an excellent program then I guess they could go even higher. Kids love winners.

      Delete
  5. Chris,
    It is time to make your prediction on the season. What Games will they win or lose?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This article is spot on. Another factor in your favor is that you can only have 85 scholarship players. So ranking Texas Tech at #21 bc they have 25 total commits, when NINE of them are 2 stars, is ridiculous. If the scholarship limit was at 105 like it used to be then I could see total recruits mattering. But as it stands, if you want the best 85 player roster you should be judged on your top 17-22 kids (85 divided by 4 or 5 for total years in the program depending on redshirts).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Recruiting won't matter with a loss to YSU or Akron. The buzz will be gone as well. Have to win these first two. First up, YSU. Without Boyd the QB is going to have to win it. How will Chad do in a new system right away? Should be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We needed Boyd last time we played YSU and he was in high school, lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Different players, different coaches. What happened in 2012 means nothing for 2015.

      Delete
    2. actually, what happened in 2012 can only help what happens in 2015

      Delete
    3. What happened in 2014 is more relevant than what happened in 2012. It amazes me that people look at the name of the opponent & completely disregard the most recent info.

      Delete
  9. Just as a point of clarification - rivals system only counts the first 20 players. So if you have less (as we do now) you get penalized. But if you have say 25, your bottom 5 players aren't counted at all no matter how bad they are.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The only things that actually matter are those that occur on this Saturday.

    ReplyDelete