Who will be commit #14?
- Thread starter Bullwhip Griffith
- Start date
Could I pick your lowest 5 recruits and then cherry pick 5 comits to make Purdue look much better? Sure could but I don’t feel the need to rationalize with someone who had proven to us as Purdue fans (and other NU fans) to be a douche.
Literally you are continually pounding your chest at a place where nobody cares.
I honestly want to make thread reminding folks there are FOURTEEN teams in the B1G. Wolegib seems to discount national class rankings and focuses solely on where our class ranks in the B1G. Apparently this newest class is sitting at 7th in the B1G....which is SEVEN spots higher than we’ve been since 2007-ish.
I blocked Mr. Bigelow several months ago and my message board experience has been greatly enhanced since. I highly recommend it.
2012 class finished 4th in the conference.
I rarely agree with wolegib, but talent compared to your peers is an important thing to look at
How can somebody who blocked me have credibility in responding to my posts? I merely pointed out the place within the BIG 10 Purdue would be if you looked at the average ranking of their players rather than using the formula that accounts for the number of recruits. Our recruiting ranking also looked great last year until the other schools we were ahead of filled out their classes . Our final rating was a lot lower than our mid stream rating.
And since our team plays a lot of BIG 10 opponents, the vast majority of both our wins and losses will come from playing those teams. It doesn't really matter what our ranking is against mountain west or ACC or USA conference teams as we will not play them and our recruiting record against theirs doesn't really matter or translate into wins.
And since our team plays a lot of BIG 10 opponents, the vast majority of both our wins and losses will come from playing those teams. It doesn't really matter what our ranking is against mountain west or ACC or USA conference teams as we will not play them and our recruiting record against theirs doesn't really matter or translate into wins.
I simply picked the last five commitments of each program, excluding your punter commit and our transfer because the recruiting process is always odd for specialists and the Johnson situation was a one-off.
Kalafatis (sp?) is an outstanding prospect. Zero argument there. Purdue is very fortunate that he’s in your back yard and, as I understand it, family ties.
That said, college football is much more about depth of talent than having one or two “headliners” (except potentially at the QB position, which is why we are so excited about Johnson at NU). My point is that the “middle section” of NU recruiting far outstrips that of Purdue, despite hearing over and over about how much talent Brohm is bringing in. It’s like people have trouble imagining NU as a legitimate football team, which we’ve proven patently false the past three years. This ain’t the 1980s anymore.
I picked the last five recruits for each program, both to compare the trajectory of talent actually committing to each program and because I believe depth of talent is more important than having one or two “headliners.”
And I still don’t give a crap about rankings. For instance, which of these guys would you rather have just based on tape?
Who are you saying blocked you? I read your posts. I’m simply pointing out that it’s been awhile since we could point to a specific recruiting class in the future as the one that helped Purdue Football over the hump. Also that even though it’s called The B1G, there are 14 teams, so a far from finished recruiting class that currently ranks 7th in conference and 26th nationally.
I think he was referring to me. On my laptop I cannot see anything from anyone I have blocked - which is awesome! Unfortunately on my phone I can see what those who I have blocked have written when someone replies to their post. That's how I knew he was erroneously stating the Purdue was 12th in recruiting. My message board experiences are much better without reading Reed's drivel.
Hunks golden referred to my post quoting my words, and then added he placed me on ignore long ago. How can you quote somebody or even properly respond to a post if you have them on ignore?
my point was twofold. The first point is that the ranking within your conference is much more important than the national ranking.
My second point was that the ranking you are using is based on a formula that uses both a player's ranking and how many players are part of that class. Purdue's current ranking is based on having more commits than several other teams. When those teams add players, their rating will also go up.
That's why I believe a more accurate rating is a team's average ranking of all its recruits.
at this writing, based on 24/7, Purdue is ranked 27th nationally and 8th in the BIG 10. To me the 8th within the conference is more significant than the 27 because Purdue will be playing those BIG 10 teams.
I also wanted to temper your enthusiasm by pointing out using a different stat to rate our recruiting class, that Purdue, based on the average ranking of recruit is .8551. That's a lot higher than previous years. But that average is 12th best in the BIG 10. and once other teams have as many commits as Purdue does, based on that average, our recruiting ranking may go down.
sometimes it's better to predict the winner of a horse race at the end of the race rather than brag about it at mid stream. the same is true for football games. if Purdue has 20 scholarships to give, you could say Purdue is currently winning in the third quarter. But Maryland, Nebraska and IU all have less than 10 commits. Once those three teams have as many commits as Purdue, all three could end up with a higher team ranking.
So to brag about the ranking of Purdue's recruiting class at this juncture is a little premature. I believe you should wait until signing day.
Does Rivals simply combine every commitments ranking number and divide that by the total number of recruits to adjust for a team recruiting score?? For as detailed as Rivals appears to be with each players personal ranking, I’d be thoroughly disappointed if true.
I used to assume this was the case. But I recall (not sure which sites) seeing teams with only 9-10 guys in their class due to a signing a large class in prior years, yet some ranked in the Top 20 and others in the 60’s.
What I believe is the ultimate recruiting x-factor is coaches who land players that fit their mold. We see a lot of highly touted kids go to college and disappear off the map, while others make immediate impacts. I believe Brohm and his staff have known since their playing days, the type of players they’d recruit. 5 Star recruits can become bench warmers just as 3 Star recruits can be a game changer as freshmen. The head coach has to know exactly the type of player he wants and recruit them heavily regardless of what their personal ranking is. Some are investments and some are game changers. Sticking to his guidelines will ultimately pay off on the gridiron.
All I can offer is that there is a formula involved. and tha t formula includes the amount of recruits and it is added. So a team with 15 quality recruits would have a higher ranking than a team with less than 10. Once that team with less than 10 recruits starts adding more recruits, their overall recruiting ranking goes up. There are some who say the formula only includes a team's top 20 recruits, and it doesn't include transfers like Hunter. So it's overall accuracy is questionable.
if a team like penn St has only 10 recruits now and is still ranked in the top 10, you know those recruits are awesome, and when signing day comes, their class will be ranked even higher.
As for Purdue, we raved about brohm's class last year at about this time. Very few raved about it on signing day, as we finished 50th overall and 11th in the BIG 10. It was a vast improvement over the hazel years. But, other BIG 10 teams did better in the end. IU ended up being ranked 48th.
But the biggest problem is posters here have a tendency not to look at how other teams fared. We have a very bad tendency to compare our current efforts against the failures of our past, rather than our current competition.
Purdue is having an outstanding recruiting season this year. but so is EVERY BIG 10 team.
I guess kind of like the relationship you guys had with the Johnson family. Very fortunate!
Purdue is having an outstanding recruiting season this year. but so EVERY BIG 10 team.[/QUOTE]
As the B1G typically does. The big difference maker being a coach like Brohm who has proven in very short order that he recruits the best guys to win under his coaching.
#14 = Nyles Beverly. Offers include Michigan, Minnesota, Pitt, Rutgers, Vandy, Kentucky, Iowa State, and plenty more.
Just read this on 247. If the 2012 class was 4th in the B1G, our class only ranked decently due to the entire conference whiffing.
From 247 - The 2018 class that signed with Purdue finished ranked No. 50 nationally, the first Top50 haul for the Boilers since 2012 when they wrapped up No. 49. The five recruiting classes prior to Brohm's arrival ranked No 72, No. 80, No. 67, No. 70 and No. 61.
I was using rivals.
And yes, prior To urban and Harbaugh and franklin, the big ten wasn’t placing the same priority on recruiting it does now
Yeah cmon guys...Nyles Beverly offers have nothing on Northwesterns last commit offer list
Hope he doesn't get lured away by a high end liberal arts school.
Unfortunately, I think the invitation has already been sent now.
If not right now, it is going to be bad on here about 2 weeks before August 30th.
If not right now, it is going to be bad on here about 2 weeks before August 30th.
Similar threads
Purdue recruiting Three-star DT has Purdue at top of recruitment
Purdue football Purdue FB 2025 Official Visit Tracker
