ESPN class rank
- Thread starter takedownboiler
- Start date
We play Mizzou next year. Mizzou is in the SEC.
Rivals sucks as far as evaluating in my opinion. They rank you who you commit too. I think ESPN and Scout are much more accurate.
However that stated, you can't fairly judge a class until after they are gone. If these "rankers" were true and good evaluators, they'd be coaching somewhere or as an advanced scout.
A lack of on field talent surely contributed to Purdue's abysmal record over the past 4 seasons. But DH2 teams VASTLY under-performed to the recruiting rankings for a number of reasons which I would put in the coaching and development category.
Here are the F+ ratings for Purdue over the past 4 seasons (out of 128 teams):
2016: 100
2015: 93
2014: 84
2013: 114
2013-2016 average = 98
Over this same period plus 3 years prior, here are the recruiting rankings (arbitrarily using Rivals):
2016: 74
2015: 71
2014: 71
2013: 56
2012: 34
2011: 77
2010: 57
2010-2016 average = 63
This data suggests that an average D1 coach with the same recruiting rankings would have produced results 35 spots higher.
A look at WKU recruiting ranks vs. results yields the opposite effect, where they were significantly outperforming their recruiting ranking.
Moral of the story: When you're in the middle of the pack talent-wise, coaching matters MUCH more than recruiting ranking. Implicit in this is the fact that good coaches recruit to their specific schemes.
So we are a few spots behind teams like IU, Illinois, Minnesota, and Rutgers. The reality is the classes are close enough in talent it is once again going to come down to who coaches 'em up the best!
Yes, I'd like to see us consistently pull in Top 40 classes. And I believe that will happen with more wins and a better brand of football on the field. It has before.
Here are the F+ ratings for Purdue over the past 4 seasons (out of 128 teams):
2016: 100
2015: 93
2014: 84
2013: 114
2013-2016 average = 98
Over this same period plus 3 years prior, here are the recruiting rankings (arbitrarily using Rivals):
2016: 74
2015: 71
2014: 71
2013: 56
2012: 34
2011: 77
2010: 57
2010-2016 average = 63
This data suggests that an average D1 coach with the same recruiting rankings would have produced results 35 spots higher.
A look at WKU recruiting ranks vs. results yields the opposite effect, where they were significantly outperforming their recruiting ranking.
Moral of the story: When you're in the middle of the pack talent-wise, coaching matters MUCH more than recruiting ranking. Implicit in this is the fact that good coaches recruit to their specific schemes.
So we are a few spots behind teams like IU, Illinois, Minnesota, and Rutgers. The reality is the classes are close enough in talent it is once again going to come down to who coaches 'em up the best!
Yes, I'd like to see us consistently pull in Top 40 classes. And I believe that will happen with more wins and a better brand of football on the field. It has before.
Last edited:
I agree that it's awful for optics to be "last in the Big 10", and perhaps suggest the team won't compete too well in the league. However, in the big picture if B1G teams were ranked #1-14 nationally, pretty clearly the conference rank would be for braggin' rights only.
This was clearly an odd year for recruiting given the coaching change at Purdue, and unexpected changes at IU/Minnesota. I'm still feeling positive for the future!
But once again, Purdue is not in the WKU conference, it's in the B10 and the B10 is a lot tougher. WKU talent will get you WKU results in their conference. WKU talent will not get you any better in the B10.
I think Brohms WKU's team this past year would likely have beat Purdue by 2 touchdowns. But I'm no longer a betting man
WKU F/+ rank of #15 was highest of any non P5 team, ahead of Boise #19 and W. Michigan #24. All with a roster full of recruiting classes that were ranked lower than every single one of DH2's classes at Purdue, much lower than CJB's 2017 class. Any of those 3 teams would have been competitive in the Big Ten West.
Honestly, I think our undefeated HS team could have defeated Purdue this year....and the last three.
the biggest issue is not that we finished last, but we have consistently finished last or close to last. it's ok to have a bad year. but Brohm kind of improved our year from dead last to a close last. But, it's still last. and when you're last or close to it for 5 years in a row, you can't really expect positive results.
Looking a all the recruits Brohm signed, I am led to wonder how good of a recruiter he will be for Purdue. It was kind of a mixed bag with 75% of the recruits being Brohm offers , and not Hazell. . Supposedly our academic requirements nixed the signings of Williams and Nixon. and probably also nixed the recruiting of other quality players - maybe White, Sharpe and Jones. With enrollment requirements that are more stringent than the rest of the BIG 10, it's hard to compete for the same recruits.
What does the future hold ? more of the same ? or a crack into the top 30-40?
Looking a all the recruits Brohm signed, I am led to wonder how good of a recruiter he will be for Purdue. It was kind of a mixed bag with 75% of the recruits being Brohm offers , and not Hazell. . Supposedly our academic requirements nixed the signings of Williams and Nixon. and probably also nixed the recruiting of other quality players - maybe White, Sharpe and Jones. With enrollment requirements that are more stringent than the rest of the BIG 10, it's hard to compete for the same recruits.
What does the future hold ? more of the same ? or a crack into the top 30-40?
We have won 9 games in 4 years and he was here 2 months without a full staff for most of it. Next year will be a much better indication of what to expect from recruiting.
Rather than continuing to focus on Brohm, I wish people would start focusing on the efforts of our opponents. Our opponents' recruiting efforts were tremendous this year. I've said it 100 times. Rather than comparing our class to the past, we need to look at Brohm's peers. it's going to be very hard, even with a better coach to have a top 5 recruiting class in the BIG 10.
I'd like to ask an honest question. Do you believe Brohm will ever be able to out recruit Michigan, OSU, PSU, UW, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Iowa, or MSU? is the best we can hope for 7th place in the BIG 10? How good of a class can we actually expect to have? What type of recruits can we expect to choose Purdue over O$U ? will we be fighting for the best? or focusing on the second tier ?
I also don't place much emphasis on that 2 month excuse. A close look at Brohm's recruits showed he had been recruiting almost all of them for an entire year, just for WKU. Almost every recruit Brohm signed had previously received an offer from Brohm while he was at WKU. it's not like Brohm all of a sudden started recruiting in December he just switched return addresses he probably kept the same cell phone number.
I do not blame Brohm. . He's working his tale off. I'd just like some feedback / speculation. as what you believe we can look forward to next year. Should I get my hopes up? or should I be realistic and praise a top 50- 60 class?
I'd like to ask an honest question. Do you believe Brohm will ever be able to out recruit Michigan, OSU, PSU, UW, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Iowa, or MSU? is the best we can hope for 7th place in the BIG 10? How good of a class can we actually expect to have? What type of recruits can we expect to choose Purdue over O$U ? will we be fighting for the best? or focusing on the second tier ?
I also don't place much emphasis on that 2 month excuse. A close look at Brohm's recruits showed he had been recruiting almost all of them for an entire year, just for WKU. Almost every recruit Brohm signed had previously received an offer from Brohm while he was at WKU. it's not like Brohm all of a sudden started recruiting in December he just switched return addresses he probably kept the same cell phone number.
I do not blame Brohm. . He's working his tale off. I'd just like some feedback / speculation. as what you believe we can look forward to next year. Should I get my hopes up? or should I be realistic and praise a top 50- 60 class?
Iowa and msu? Sure. You're high if you expect any Purdue coach to out recruit Michigan and osu.
The way to close the gap is player development. Hence Purdue being a developmental program
The way to close the gap is player development. Hence Purdue being a developmental program
I don't believe player development works anymore. it's too long of a process and cuts into the depth of your team when 10-15 of your players are projects and are being redshirted and not available to participate in a game. I know Purdue has used this philosophy for a long time . but I don't think it works. You end up with a receiver like Marshall who is developed his senior year. or a lineman like Panfil whom many like. to me, you need more guys like Jones and Bentley who were ready to contribute from day 1. Successful programs spend more emphasis on acquiring talent, and less effort of player development.
I know very little about football. I know Purdue has always depended on player development. Michigan, Alabama, and OSU do not. The results of which path to follow are obvious.
I know very little about football. I know Purdue has always depended on player development. Michigan, Alabama, and OSU do not. The results of which path to follow are obvious.
So if we believe we will never be able to outrecruit our opponents shouldn't we entirely focus on Brohm and the Point-fense? I suggest you read up on Brohm and what his offenses did when Petrino left and the shackles were off. They have one mode - Score F**king Points.
Last edited:
Which is why you develop guys in a sequence so you have the upper classmen developed then the next guy developed right behind him. At some point the success will beget success in recruiting but it is a process. Its not like they are sitting around like oh shit, we've been doing this wrong let's just recruit the alabama players. Voila.
The fact that Hazell and Hope royally sucked at development isn't some death knell in the development style. It's two shitty coaches.
Last edited:
it's honestly not that bad for having 2 months to pull it together. Will hope for about 20 spots higher next year.
15 projects on a team of 85 is not detrimental to depth. You have to build up the depth over multiple classes. This will take time. Iowa, MSU, Wisconsin all are developmental programs that took time to build.
As for Bama, Michigan, OSU, you should take a look at their football budgets, then our and reconsider.
I realize Purdue's success depends on development. And when that development doesn't exist, neither does your success. Over the last few years, many fans have complained about our lack of depth and used it as an excuse for losing. My opinion is if we recruited more immediate impact players, we wouldn't have to worry about depth or development.
I hate to keep bringing up the name Cronk, but he's such an excellent example to prove my point. He was a 3* offensive lineman not really sought after by Michigan, O$U or Alabama. He was signed by IU. He was ready to play from day 1 and didn't need to redshirt to be ready to play. And in doing so, he contributed major minutes as a freshman and stepped into IU's starting line-up for a couple of games due to other injuries . I am sure, he will receive additional development throughout his college career. But , he didn't redshirt to build up strength and bulk. He was a immediate contributor.
I fully expect some of this year's class of recruits to make a similar immediate impact. I even expect Sipe or Alstott to add depth to our QB position. I like Beach, Edwards, Mackey and Hamilton. I believe they and our JUCO recruits all have the potential to make an immediate contribution this year.
My thoughts are rather than reaching for a prospect and then developing them, we should go after a player who is already ready, and then develop him to be even better. Isn't that what Painter is doing with Swanigan, Haas and Edwards?
Cronk and Knight were players Purdue absolutely should have gotten, but Hazell was so awful we didnt. There are others. It will take time for Brohm to repair the damage Hope and Hazell did in indiana.
You still need depth and development if the injury bug hits or if you need to give guys a blow. The front line starters at Purdue last year weren't the 126th ranked (Sagarin) team talent wise however they can't play 70-90 snaps on both sides. Why good teams are good is the drop off especially on the lines, the secondary and LB isn't a cliff.
If it goes as it should, you should get contributions for 3 years from a redshirted player
Nat, I'm not picking on you or anyone but....why? Why do you and others sell your school so short and accept such mediocrity? Shouldn't all PU alum's be pushing for a coach and a team that can play with the big boys on a National level? If people can't push for that, maybe the MAC would be a better place to play. Just my honest opinion because I've never been one to settle for less. If you don't expect Brohm and his staff to recruit on the same level as UM, OSU, MSU, why? Again, I'm not criticizing but have seen this mentality on here for years.
Did you ignore my comment that the way to close the gap is development?
College football is not an even playing field, even among P5 schools. Ignoring that and stomping your feet demanding the little 8 (now 12) compete with the big 2 doesnt help. Can Purdue compete with those two on the football field? Yes. Even Danny Hope did that. Can they compete on the recruiting trail? Nope. Resource difference is staggering.
And over the past 4 years we saw what the Ohio State model does at a school like Purdue.
Funny that MSU now sometimes gets lumped into that top tier, when in fact they became what they are by developing under recruited guys passed over by OSU and UM. Sure, they can go toe to toe for some recruits now, but that wasn't always the case. They had to win first, and they had to find a way to do it with average recruits.
Iowa still has to develop guys. Same with Wisky. Both those schools go toe to toe with the elites.
Nat, didn't ignore anything you said. That's why I asked you the question. There is a reason I wanted a certain former LSU coach to be hired at PU and that reason is that it would have immediately stepped up the quality of recruits coming to West Laffy. While Brohm may have done a nice job at a MAC level school and participated in a lesser bowl, I doubt bringing in that type of recruit which is what he's done so far will mean developing said recruits into studs at a Big 10 University. Personally, bringing in a known coach like Miles is/was what PU needed to do. So far, I question what the new AD has done to significantly improve the program.
IMO, Miles was a really bad fit. Archaic offense. Wouldnt have the low admission standards he had at LSU. Miles was the hot take pick by people who only looked at name and nothing else.
AD made the correct moves IMO. Whether or not it pans out will be seen in the next few seasons.
I have begun to understand why Purdue can't compete on the recruiting trail with many of the other power 5 schools. and it appears they also don't want to compete either. if academics is all that important to Purdue's administration, they should go the way of University of Chicago and leave the BIG 10. I will agree Miles would have failed at recruiting as well, because the type of player he recruits would not be accepted into Purdue. this is why I urge Purdue to change their entrance requirements to the same as those of other BIG 10 state sponsored schools. IU and Purdue are both State schools. Does IU have the same entrance requirements? I can see requiring certain high school subjects for entrance into certain majors, but not across the board. A history major doesn't need 4 years of high school math. I don't want to lower Purdue's academic standards. rather, I want to make them appropriate for the student entering them. And I assume these standards apply to all students, not just athletes.
Why are you continuing to spar with these guys? This has turned into one of the dumbest threads in sports forum history. Reality and critical thinking are just too hard of drugs for them.
who is dumber ? the person who creates dumb threads? or the person who responds to them ? Who is wasting their time more? the originator of a dumb thread, or the one who feels the need after looking at the originator's name, to still open the thread and respond to it? I say , we need to cut the mustard.
