Welcome the North Dakota State

[McPeachy]

NDSU could beat us on a weekly basis, sorry

What? I don't agree at all. Could they have beaten us in 2012 - 2013...more than likely, yes. 6 or 7 out of 10 times probably. They were better coached. We would have wiped the field with them during the Joe Glenn years...and the first few of the Dickhead years.

 

[J-Rod]

Didn't know that about CSewe - but I am not a believer in the rivals star rankings being the end-all be-all. It comes down to development and desire more than anything. I think Bohl knows that as well, and after 5 or 6 years, if given the time, he may make it. I'm not sure we will be MWC championship contenders this year, next year, or the year after, or maybe even the year after that...but again, I think this is a 6 year project.

Recruiting rankings are subjective, and while accurate...aren't always right. But it doesn't mean they're irrelevant. There are zero schools that can say, "Hey! Look at us! We recruit a bunch of 2-star, no-named talent and we're a Top 25 football program that wins conference championships all the time!" Who the hell says that? There is nobody lol.

 

[JimmyDimes]

4 of 6 verbals for CSU are 3* according to rivals and we have one 2* and unranked others.

I'm not saying bohl is doing a bad job. Seems like he's doing pretty good. We'll see how year two goes. Maybe we'll see sophomores on the rise breakout freshmen. If you look back, I think more of our 3* recruits have been busts than starters.

All I'm saying is if I had to bet my job, give me a team of 3* kids

If you go to 247sports and look at the offers....there really isn't much difference between who is offering our unranked and 2* guys vs their guys. We've beat out a bunch of FCS schools including NDST as well as Marshall, UCF, and Air Force. They have beat out Nevada, Toledo, and Southern Miss along with some FCS schools. All other offers of their non JC guys are from small schools. Only one of their recruits, a JUCO TE, has a P5 offer.

I'll say this all day long, stars are highly subjective. 247Sports ranks our QB recruit Garrett as better than any of their recruits for what it is worth.

 

[JimmyDimes]

NDSU could beat us on a weekly basis, sorry

What? I don't agree at all. Could they have beaten us in 2012 - 2013...more than likely, yes. 6 or 7 out of 10 times probably. They were better coached. We would have wiped the field with them during the Joe Glenn years...and the first few of the Dickhead years.

Joe did beat them....but not by much. CSU on the other hand...got it handed to them by coach Bohl and his Bison.

 

[McPeachy]

Didn't know that about CSewe - but I am not a believer in the rivals star rankings being the end-all be-all. It comes down to development and desire more than anything. I think Bohl knows that as well, and after 5 or 6 years, if given the time, he may make it. I'm not sure we will be MWC championship contenders this year, next year, or the year after, or maybe even the year after that...but again, I think this is a 6 year project.

Recruiting rankings are subjective, and while accurate...aren't always right. But it doesn't mean they're irrelevant. There are zero schools that can say, "Hey! Look at us! We recruit a bunch of 2-star, no-named talent and we're a Top 25 football program that wins conference championships all the time!" Who the hell says that? There is nobody lol.

Maybe we will be the first? :rofl:

 

[seattlecowboy]

Didn't know that about CSewe - but I am not a believer in the rivals star rankings being the end-all be-all. It comes down to development and desire more than anything. I think Bohl knows that as well, and after 5 or 6 years, if given the time, he may make it. I'm not sure we will be MWC championship contenders this year, next year, or the year after, or maybe even the year after that...but again, I think this is a 6 year project.

Recruiting rankings are subjective, and while accurate...aren't always right. But it doesn't mean they're irrelevant. There are zero schools that can say, "Hey! Look at us! We recruit a bunch of 2-star, no-named talent and we're a Top 25 football program that wins conference championships all the time!" Who the hell says that? There is nobody lol.

Actually that is what NDSU has been doing. Obviously they aren't FBS but they have won 4 straight national championships with all Bohl recruits the first 3 years and some of his recruits last year.

They also beat every D1 school they faced the last 3 years.

Thing is in our 2015 recruiting class we just signed 9 3 star guys so I think our recruiting is better than anything Bohl did there.

I agree with you though as far as FBS goes you don't see anyone saying "hey we are loaded with 2 star recruits we are going to the national championship" :lol:

 

[ragtimejoe1]

4 of 6 verbals for CSU are 3* according to rivals and we have one 2* and unranked others.

I'm not saying bohl is doing a bad job. Seems like he's doing pretty good. We'll see how year two goes. Maybe we'll see sophomores on the rise breakout freshmen. If you look back, I think more of our 3* recruits have been busts than starters.

All I'm saying is if I had to bet my job, give me a team of 3* kids

Definitely agree. It was a while ago, but on the MWC board, we looked at all conference players and their star rating out of high school. By far, the most all conference players were 3 star plus. I don't want to spend the time to do another evaluation, but I'd bet it still holds true.

However, now that TCU, Utah, and byu left, and we are in a reworked FCS-like conference, it might not be "as true".

 

[seattlecowboy]

I just looked for comparison sake:

and CSU had 7 guys that were ranked 3 stars.

Boise State had 20 guys that are 3 stars and one 4 star recruit for this 2015 class that just signed in the spring.

San Diego St. had two 4 star recruits and twelve 3 star recruits.

Fresno St. one 4 star and thirteen 3 stars.

San Jose St. one 4 star and twenty three 3 stars.


Looks like Boise St. and San Jose St. are loading up on 3 star recruits.

 

[J-Rod]

Actually that is what NDSU has been doing. Obviously they aren't FBS but they have won 4 straight national championships with all Bohl recruits the first 3 years and some of his recruits last year.

On that level, absolutely. They continue to bulldoze their competition. It's not MW-like by any means, but they dominate.

Ball State by 5
Central Michigan by 30
Kansas by 3
Minnesota by 4, 13
Lost to Wyoming by 3
Colorado State by 15
Kansas State by 3

Lost to Iowa State by 17, but then beat them by 20 last fall.

That's a fantastic list of FBS wins for an FCS program, but it's not a list of world beaters by any means. None of those teams were even close to Top 25-caliber when NDSU beat them.

Not trying to demean that success, it is solid....I just :roll: at the Bison fans who think that's evidence that they would have no problem competing in the MWC. Narrowly losing to Joe Glenn's worst team ever? Knocking off Kansas by 3? Again, good job...but not evidence that they'd be Boise State if they moved up tomorrow. Wyoming is the better program IMO.

 

[J-Rod]

I just looked for comparison sake:

and CSU had 7 guys that were ranked 3 stars.

Boise State had 20 guys that are 3 stars and one 4 star recruit for this 2015 class that just signed in the spring.

San Diego St. had two 4 star recruits and twelve 3 star recruits.

Fresno St. one 4 star and thirteen 3 stars.

San Jose St. one 4 star and twenty three 3 stars.


Looks like Boise St. and San Jose St. are loading up on 3 star recruits.

Good list. Remember though, not all 3-Star players are equal.

Boise State's Tanner Vallejo, Fiesta Bowl MVP, was a 3-Star recruit....BUT...he was ranked 25th overall nationally at MLB, and got looks form the likes of Alabama. Not exactly the same caliber of prospect as Joe Schmo who committed to San Jose State and has offers from Sacramento State and New Mexico. Stars are one thing, but ranking is important too.

 

[VisorHair]

Just took a stroll down memory lane and looked at the 2002 commits on Rivals (furthest it would go back) and we landed a bunch of two stars and a 4 star O-Lineman (Jon Hawk).. Who the hell is that? I don't remember him. I looked him up and he may have gone to OU but no stats? Dude is a ghost. Y'all remember him?

 

[JimmyDimes]

Just took a stroll down memory lane and looked at the 2002 commits on Rivals (furthest it would go back) and we landed a bunch of two stars and a 4 star O-Lineman (Jon Hawk).. Who the hell is that? I don't remember him. I looked him up and he may have gone to OU but no stats? Dude is a ghost. Y'all remember him?

Never played.....Dax Crum was another 4* guy.

 

[seattlecowboy]

Yeah I think looking at offers from other schools is a better way to compare myself.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

If you don't think recruiting rankings matter, google "correlation between recruiting rankings and success".

Lots of good reading material. There are always outliers, but outliers are not solid supporting data for any concept.

 

[seattlecowboy]

If you don't think recruiting rankings matter, google "correlation between recruiting rankings and success".

Lots of good reading material. There are always outliers, but outliers are not solid supporting data for any concept.

I agree they do matter but I think you should also look at not only the rankings but also the schools offering those ranked recruits also and you can tell even more so if they have a good chance are doing well.

I think if you have two different 3 star guys for instance and one is being offered by CSU , Boise St. and New Mexico and the other is being offered by Florida, Oklahoma and Texas for instance then there is a decent chance the 2nd guy is going to be better than the first. Doesn't always work out like that but if Wyoming snagged both guys in this hypothetical scenario both could be good players but more times than not the 2nd guy is probably going to end up being better.

 

[J-Rod]

If you don't think recruiting rankings matter, google "correlation between recruiting rankings and success".

Lots of good reading material. There are always outliers, but outliers are not solid supporting data for any concept.

Exactly. Like I posted earlier, there is no school parading around saying "we get nothing but no-named 2-star recruits and we're kicking everyone's ass!"

 

[J-Rod]

I agree they do matter but I think you should also look at not only the rankings but also the schools offering those ranked recruits also and you can tell even more so if they have a good chance are doing well.

I think if you have two different 3 star guys for instance and one is being offered by CSU , Boise St. and New Mexico and the other is being offered by Florida, Oklahoma and Texas for instance then there is a decent chance the 2nd guy is going to be better than the first. Doesn't always work out like that but if Wyoming snagged both guys in this hypothetical scenario both could be good players but more times than not the 2nd guy is probably going to end up being better.

+1 Exactly. It's not foolproof, but more often than not, player with offers from 1 SEC school, and 2 BigXII schools is probably better than recruit who only has 3 MWC offers. That is not always the case, but if we're betting on one of them...

Like I've pointed out in the past: Derek Carr, Kellen Moore, and Colt Brennan were all 4-Star recruits. Garrett Grayson and Colin Kaepernick were high-end 3-Star recruits.

Jake Heaps was a 5-Star recruit.

Do they always get it right? No....but more often than not? Yes.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

If you don't think recruiting rankings matter, google "correlation between recruiting rankings and success".

Lots of good reading material. There are always outliers, but outliers are not solid supporting data for any concept.

I agree they do matter but I think you should also look at not only the rankings but also the schools offering those ranked recruits also and you can tell even more so if they have a good chance are doing well.

I think if you have two different 3 star guys for instance and one is being offered by CSU , Boise St. and New Mexico and the other is being offered by Florida, Oklahoma and Texas for instance then there is a decent chance the 2nd guy is going to be better than the first. Doesn't always work out like that but if Wyoming snagged both guys in this hypothetical scenario both could be good players but more times than not the 2nd guy is probably going to end up being better.

Definitely agree. 2 pieces of data are better than 1 and I think the offers are good data.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

+1 Exactly. It's not foolproof, but more often than not, player with offers from 1 SEC school, and 2 BigXII schools is probably better than recruit who only has 3 MWC offers. That is not always the case, but if we're betting on one of them...


Do they always get it right? No....but more often than not? Yes.

Yep, kind of like horse racing. You have the favorite, the favorite (or near favorite) that the pros are betting on, and everything down to long-shots.

If the goal was to simply pick a horse to show (i.e. be a starter), would you pick the long-shot every time?

 

[J-Rod]

Yep, kind of like horse racing. You have the favorite, the favorite (or near favorite) that the pros are betting on, and everything down to long-shots.

If the goal was to simply pick a horse to show (i.e. be a starter), would you pick the long-shot every time?

Who knows? But it's a accumulation of these prospects that builds depth.

Let's say some team recruits 5 "diamond in the rough recruits"...the nice way of saying unranked, barely approached recruits. More often than not, these lowly-ranked recruits are unrecognized for a reason. "More often than not"...these guys have a ceiling of starter, with an outlier occasionally that reaches all-conference level.

"Some team" is solid at talent development, and turns these types of individuals into good players.

Another team recruits five 3-Star recruits. This group is mixed with high-end and low-end 3-Star recruits. Are all of them gonna pan out? Probably not, but I'm guessing 3/5 become starters and contributors, 1-2 might even be studs. And this is assuming that this team isn't even all that great at talent development. If they are, these 3-Star recruits might perform like 4-Star/5-Star players.

If both teams do their respective approaches for several years, which one do you think will have more depth at each position and be in a better situation to succeed?