You're Not wrong but you can also get the same media coverage and such by having a fringe top ten but reel in a couple high profile plhigher. When making the top ten heavily includes how many commits you have it may be much harder to make it since they took the 25 limit off of this class. Teams biggest obstacle to getting a top 10 class may come down to how many current players they have on roster and can they bring in a full class of 25+ and also be under the 85 limit. If a teams gets 32 commits this year and we can only get 20 or so their point total will be higher even if our player avg. Ranking is better and class is more even. So I'm not sure we can dial in on a particular number for this class because of other challenges outside the coaches control
if we're going STRICTLY off the ranking of players, you can kinda tell though. Notre Dame finished 7th last year and Michigan was 9th and both schools had 22 HS commits. Both had 1 5* kid but ND had 17 4* kids to UM's 9 and ND had only 4 4* kids while UM had 12. If you looked at it that way, you can see a difference but like you said, that can be and more than likely is skewed cause we've seen a kid get a bump up or down for being committed to certain schools
But again, what about those kids that bounce between 3 and 4 stars....is there really a difference? It just so arbitrary once you get past a handful of super elite kids
Our D scheme requires two MLB's that are thumpers. Tweeners won't work. And we are a power running team and need powerful run blockers...and a lot of them. Add in the lack of successful recruiting at DT over the past three cycles and that #12 ranking is meaningless. We have two solid OL, no LBs and maybe one project DT (he would need to add significant mass). I know we are on the right path in recruiting but some are overly focused on the ranking rather than the balance.
They had him vested-up with that new technology vest and are watching him pretty closely . . . among a few others. The Gumps also have enjoyed a recruiting/coaching army that Coach Napier wanted and has gotten for us to be competitive and we're already seeing benefits . . . and I believe we'll see a lot more when games begin. Hearing about all the "little things" which are being done, which add-up to HUGE differences, it sounds like Coach Napier took a lot from The Gump approach and is building a Gainesville version for Florida.
Mods can delete If I'm not allowed to link to another site but I found the average NIL numbers interesting (how accurate?). UF is probably inline with what most of us were thinking. You can see how Miami's numbers compare as well 2023 Consensus Football Team Recruiting Rankings 1. Alabama 147K 2. Notre Dame 78K 3. Georgia 84K 4. Ohio State 90K 5. Texas 222K 6. Miami 121K 7. Oklahoma 84K 8. Clemson 72k 9. Penn St 65K 10. LSU 59K Teams with huge NIL numbers but not in top 10: 11. USC 121K 14. Oregon 102K 17. TXAM 100K UF: 41K Again, not sure how accurate these numbers are.
. . . and yet Florida is ranked just outside the Top 10 at #13 according to that same site. I think Coach Napier is doing some double-top-secret stuff. LOL!
You are right. There is not much difference between the number six and number eleven class. Elite classes (Tier 1) are going to have multiple five stars. Those guys do not always live up to their ranking, and the Kyle Trasks are out there, but, if they did not help, Saban, Smart, Sweeney, Fisher, Napier, and Day would not devote so much effort to brining them in. When you need to line up against Jerry Jeudy, Jaylen Waddle, Devonta Smith, and Henry Ruggs, scheme and discipline will only get you so far.
So, as 4*'s are added, how much does it help class ranking if a 3* flips to a different program? A better way of asking: How important is the player average versus number of commits?
At least we won’t have to worry about having to line up against any of those guys this year. I don’t think anyone is worried about lining up across from Ruggs. Well, not anyone except for his new roommate named “Bones”, and we’re not real sure who’s more worried about that matchup. Cover your 6, Henry.
Top 100 and top 300. Get those guys. Only so many can fit on the field but we need our share of those.
I'm pretty sure those numbers are On3's guess of the athletes NIL value, not an actual value of anything they are actually getting. I believe their assessment of an athlete's NIL value factors in two things....overall ranking and position. Seems the Our class doesn't have any top 20 overall guys to skew that number up, and the QB we have isn't ranked high enough to drag up the rest of the class. Honestly those ON3 NIL numbers are kind of worthless ion my opinion, I think they are trying to do something to set them apart from the other services, but I'm not sure it adds anything.
History has proven this to be 99% inaccurate. The one exception is if there is an elite QB in the equation.
I think it also takes into account their social media following. That’s why all these kids keep trying to get people to follow them.
