Upon reflection, sadgator gets it..and is ok with it...but hopefully by August the goofin’ will be done and Mullen will be putting his sneakers up asses...
Orange and Blue game
- Thread starter Gator Fever
- Start date
I get it too. Watching the games for the last five years has been painful, I can't imaging how frustrating it had to be to be playing with no fire every Saturday.
Like what I see from Mullen especially considering the rep he had for being someone that was a jerk when he was our OC. He has definitely tried to get the fans back on board.
Like I have been saying. The spring game was all for the fans. Nothing more, nothing less.
RB Trey Sanders***** - “This is my third time coming up in four weeks and Coach Mullen has changed this place all around. Ever since Coach Mullen has gotten here, I can see a whole difference in the staff and everything. I just like the vibe up here.”
RB Noah Cain**** - “I like the energy Coach Mullen is bringing back to the school. You can tell a big difference with the new staff. They got that juice, that energy and that fire back at Florida, so I really like that.”
DE Nolan Smith***** - “Coach Mullen is real cool. He’s funny and hilarious. He’s a swag-type of guy. I gotta have a head coach with a little swag.” - Smith, who has been committed to Georgia for 16 months, likes Florida’s 3-4 scheme under new defensive coordinator Todd Grantham. The 6-foot-2, 232-pound defender would play OLB for the Gators. - “Guys are flying around and the coaches focus on the little details,” Smith said. “I was paying attention to how they rush the passer and what moves they were using. It’s more of an NFL scheme and that’s what I would really love to play in.”
See what other recruits are saying about UF/Mullen:
https://www.seccountry.com/florida/florida-recruiting-reaction-spring-game
The recruiting class we get February 2019 will tell a lot about Mullen's impact on the program. I hope for and anticipate it being a Top 5 class, maybe even Top 2 or 3 and it needs to be if we're going to get back to national prominence. Feedback from potential signees has been very positive and only time will tell if that translates to signatures on the scholarship forms. The intensity and enthusiasm around the program has been incredible and I'm more optimistic about the future of Gator football than I have been in a long time.
Ocala, IF the HBC and his staff are happy with their recruits, and if they fill all of their positions of need, I won't really care what the recruiting services rate the class or the individuals. I would only begin to wonder if the class was outside of a consensus Top 10-15.
I generally agree - though I'd add I'll feel a lot more confident in the Top 10 side of that
I understand your positions, guys, but the fact is that the class ranking of recruiting classes over a 5 year period are pretty indicative of how good the teams are going to be. Alabama & Ohio State have been the best in that regard over the last 10 years with Georgia, LSU & FSU behind them. Clemson has been the outlier, with recruiting classes not rated as high and yet Dabo getting better results on the field. I will feel more comfortable with the highest recruiting rankings we can get.I generally agree - though I'd add I'll feel a lot more confident in the Top 10 side of that
Last edited:
Not to mention that position literally makes no sense because the rankings ARE a reflection of coaches opinions, they're not some independent ranking system. The more top level offers a recruit gets the higher their ranking. Which is why when a recruit goes to camp and picks up a few big time offers his ranking g shoots up.
People repeated this same nonsense when Mac was here signing a bunch of low rated guys and what was the end result? A losing record against ranked teams over three years getting blown out by everybody with a pulse culminating with a 4-7 season.
People repeated this same nonsense when Mac was here signing a bunch of low rated guys and what was the end result? A losing record against ranked teams over three years getting blown out by everybody with a pulse culminating with a 4-7 season.
Clemson/Dabo proves that it's the coaches/players that determine success, not what some outsider thinks about the HS recruits.
Perine was 3 star when UF recruited him. He became a 4 star when Saban tried to flip him.
Malik Davis was a 3 star when UF recruited him. He became a 4 star when Dabo tried to flip him.
7A FL State Champ Jake Allen was a 4 star, until UF got his commit, then he dropped to a 3 star.
Trask was a 1-2 star, until UF signed him and then he became a 3 star.
2 star DE Ancrum and 5 star DE Clayton, have virtually the same stats over the past 2 combined seasons.
UF's 2019 QB-dt commit is only a 3 star, until you look at his offer list....
On average, and taking the combined consensus of all of them, can get you in the ball park on an entire class rating,,,, right before NSD. Early (now) rankings are next to useless to the final outcome. NSD with LOI's in the vault.
However, they hit or miss on the individuals all the time.
5 stars that are busts and 2-3 stars that do well and then go on to the NFL.
They (recruiting services) are a BUSINE$$, not prophets or gypsies with crystal balls.
Perine was 3 star when UF recruited him. He became a 4 star when Saban tried to flip him.
Malik Davis was a 3 star when UF recruited him. He became a 4 star when Dabo tried to flip him.
7A FL State Champ Jake Allen was a 4 star, until UF got his commit, then he dropped to a 3 star.
Trask was a 1-2 star, until UF signed him and then he became a 3 star.
2 star DE Ancrum and 5 star DE Clayton, have virtually the same stats over the past 2 combined seasons.
UF's 2019 QB-dt commit is only a 3 star, until you look at his offer list....
On average, and taking the combined consensus of all of them, can get you in the ball park on an entire class rating,,,, right before NSD. Early (now) rankings are next to useless to the final outcome. NSD with LOI's in the vault.
However, they hit or miss on the individuals all the time.
5 stars that are busts and 2-3 stars that do well and then go on to the NFL.
They (recruiting services) are a BUSINE$$, not prophets or gypsies with crystal balls.
I'm fairly certain I've posted this same link in response to this same debate in past threads.
In the 2017 NFL draft, 23 of the eligible 31 former 5-star recruits were drafted. 17 in the first round.
Of the 300 eligible former 4-stars, 76 were drafted. 12 in the first round.
Of the approximate 3000 eligible former 3-stars, 90 were drafted.
So if you sign a 5-star, there's a 74 percent chance you just signed an NFL draft pick. 4-star and there's a 25 percent chance. 3-star and there's a 3 percent chance.
That seems pretty conclusive to me, but opinions will vary.
In the 2017 NFL draft, 23 of the eligible 31 former 5-star recruits were drafted. 17 in the first round.
Of the 300 eligible former 4-stars, 76 were drafted. 12 in the first round.
Of the approximate 3000 eligible former 3-stars, 90 were drafted.
So if you sign a 5-star, there's a 74 percent chance you just signed an NFL draft pick. 4-star and there's a 25 percent chance. 3-star and there's a 3 percent chance.
That seems pretty conclusive to me, but opinions will vary.
Thought Instantooter said Trask would be the greatest Q/B at Florida since Tebow?
Are you suggesting that his football scouting ability is cattywampussed?
Clemson's average player rating has been top 5 multiple years. Their total class ranking has only been lower because they've signed smaller classes compared to the schools in front of them. I have no idea where this myth that Clemson signs low rated classes is coming from. Last year alone they started three 5-star receivers on offense. Deshaun Watson? 5-star. And on and on.
And the purpose of the rankings isn't to predict without fail that every 5-star will be better than every 4-star, and that every 4-star will be better than every 3-star, etc. Its a composite ranking. Some 3-stars will be better than some 4's and on and on. Despite that the higher ranked kids dominate All-American lists and high round NFL picks. Must be coincidence.
And the purpose of the rankings isn't to predict without fail that every 5-star will be better than every 4-star, and that every 4-star will be better than every 3-star, etc. Its a composite ranking. Some 3-stars will be better than some 4's and on and on. Despite that the higher ranked kids dominate All-American lists and high round NFL picks. Must be coincidence.
This article in USA today from Feb. 2017 is where I got my information. 5 year averages are better indicators than single season recruiting rankings. And Clemson's is good, but not in the elite status. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...college-football-recruiting-classes/97422242/
Here's another article that shows Clemson with a 5 year ranking of #20.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...tball-recruiting-rankings-2017-multiple-years
You can also look at this website and look at the 247Sports composite rankings year by year and see that Clemson has NOT been in the Top 6 in any of them in the last 10 years. https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
Last edited:
That's their total class ranking which is why I mentioned their per player average. They've been elite there. But their classes have been small compared to other top classes which pushes them down in the ranking. Last year they only signed 17 for example. In 2017 they signed 14, 22 in 2016, and 22 in 2014 again. With those numbers they won't accumulate the points needed to be top 5 for example. But they're landing elite prospects. For example last year they had four 5-stars yet they were only ranked 8th on rivals just because they had a small class.
The class sizes even out over time, right? All schools have 85 scholarships and some years all schools sign more than other years. That's why 5 year and 10 year cumulative rankings are more accurate than single year rankings in determining the recruiting success of a program. Look at the years where Clemson signed a bunch of players and see where they rank. Not in the Top 10 most years and never in the Top 6. Clemson's 2018 class ranked #7 in the 247Sports composites and was their best ranking in the last 10 years. And in the cumulative rankings that the first 2 links show, Clemson is way below many other "elite" programs. That shows me that Dabo recruits very good players to his needs and then coaches all his recruits as well or better than anyone else. And I'm not a Clemson fan. I just see that compared to the other elite football schools that are almost always in contention for national titles and the Big 5 bowl games, Clemson's recruiting classes are ranked lower than most, if not all. That is not a myth.
Last edited:
You're missing my point entirely. You're only looking at class ranking which takes into account number of signees and almost disregards quality if you sign enough. Clemson has had small classes therefore they haven't accumulated the points necessary to have as high a ranking as some other teams. But from a QUALITY standpoint their classes have been elite. To add more context to what I'm saying if you go by per player average on 247 they've ranked:
2018: 4th
2017: 5th
2016: 9th
2015: 13th
2014: 8th
Those are elite, 2015 being the exception. Had they signed full classes their total rankings would have been higher. So they're not a good example to use as winning with less because they're not. For example the last two classes they've signed seven 5-stars while Alabama has signed 8, yet their class ranking hasn't been close to Alabama because they've signed less players even though the quality has been the same.
I understand you per player average thing perfectly. But you're missing my point. Recruiting rankings reflect quality + quantity. Over time all of those numbers even out. The 5 & 10 year recruiting rankings show years in which teams sign a lot of players as well as years when they sign not so many/ Clemson is no different than any other school in signing more players some years, fewer players other years. So when you look at the composite rankings over a 5 or 10 year period, they show which schools are recruiting the best. Per player averages factor in. And Clemson is not a Top 5 recruiting program and never has been. If in some years they rank Top 5 in per player average, then in other years they rank very low in per player average, the cumulative years will balance that all out, just like it does with every other school that is ranked. Bama and Ohio St. get quality & quantity year in and year out and other schools like Michgan, LSU, FSU, Auburn several others do that better than Clemson. They all have the same number of scholarship players so over time the per player average is merged with the total number of players and you get a cumulative composite. And, again, Clemson is somewhat below those elite teams in recruiting rankings. That's just a fact. Doesn't mean they're not an elite team because they've proven they are. But they've done it without getting as many elite players as quite a few other schools.
That's a flawed way of looking at it. Over time it doesn't even out at all because if they sign less players than their competition each year the gap actually grows wider. Also the 85 is an accumulation of a number of years. With transfers, medical disqualifications, and early entrants who ultimately makes up the 85 could come from 6 classes for one team, 3 for another, and still 4 for another. To illustrate my point, For from 2014-2018 Bama signed 123 players, Clemson signed exactly 100. So with each class the gap grew, not evened out. So during the same time period Bama essentially signed an extra class compared to Clemson abd the same is true for other teams which would help push Clemson's ranking down. In a simple quantity*quality formula they'd be lacking in quantity. But why would that matter if you're trying to determine the quality of the roster? Would you rather have 5 mediocre players or 3 really good ones?
You're also disregarding that the formula to have a top class almost necessitates a lot of signees. Look at the top teams in the ranking any given year and by and large they have full classes, its the only way to accumulate the amount of points necessary to be ranked high UNLESS you sign a bunch of 5-stars. So in the case of Clemson or other schools who don't sign full classes no it wouldn't even over time as I've already shown...Bama and other teams have signed almost a full class more than Clemson over a 5 year period due to their small classes. So that gap wouldn't be made up in the rankings hence them being pushed down. Because even over 10 years the top teams in the rankings are still going to be those teams with a lot of signees. The only reason they've been able to compete is because they've signed elite players in those small classes as I've also shown, that and they had a top 10 pick at QB the past few years...who was also a 5-star. Its why it's better to use their per player ranking. It's the only way to compare their classes against other teams with more signess than them, especially over time.
You're also disregarding that the formula to have a top class almost necessitates a lot of signees. Look at the top teams in the ranking any given year and by and large they have full classes, its the only way to accumulate the amount of points necessary to be ranked high UNLESS you sign a bunch of 5-stars. So in the case of Clemson or other schools who don't sign full classes no it wouldn't even over time as I've already shown...Bama and other teams have signed almost a full class more than Clemson over a 5 year period due to their small classes. So that gap wouldn't be made up in the rankings hence them being pushed down. Because even over 10 years the top teams in the rankings are still going to be those teams with a lot of signees. The only reason they've been able to compete is because they've signed elite players in those small classes as I've also shown, that and they had a top 10 pick at QB the past few years...who was also a 5-star. Its why it's better to use their per player ranking. It's the only way to compare their classes against other teams with more signess than them, especially over time.
Last edited:
Further illustrate my point, 56% of Clemson's roster this past year were 4 or 5-star recruits. That was 9th in the country and an average of the last 5 classes. Only teams ahead of them were Bama, Ohio St., LSU, FSU, UGA, USC, Michigan, and Auburn. All schools who have either played for or won a title in the last 10 years with the exception of Michigan. That's elite company. And given they've signed much less players than some of those schools, the only reason they're in the same conversation with them is because they're signing elite players at a high clip. Its basic math.
That would maybe get you what mid-pack in the SEC? That wont cut it with what Georgia etc. has been doing lately.
Blue Chip (4 & 5 Star) Ratio on 2017 Rosters:
https://www.sbnation.com/a/cfb-preview-2017/blue-chip-ratio
Team With Talent Composite 2017:
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
https://www.sbnation.com/a/cfb-preview-2017/blue-chip-ratio
Team With Talent Composite 2017:
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
Ocala, how about this jewel....
For an even bigger 'turd in the punch bowl' than Clemp's-son, try BS-U.
2006 BSU 43 - 42 Chokelahoma.
In 2005, OU had the #7 class, while BSU wasn't even in the Top 25, maybe not even in the Top 50.
With 1-2-3 star recruits, over a 5 year span 2002>06, BSU went 58-7
And they went 3-2 in their Bowls, beating OU, TCU, and IoSt.
I liked DE L.Ancrum when he was brought in, but some here ragged on him for being another wasted ship, because he was just rated as a 2 star.
However, when you compare his stats over the last 2 seasons with 5 star DE A.Clayton, they are very close to the same.
Closer to home, UGA also almost always had higher rated recruits and classes, but SOS still beat the snot outta them so often (11-1) that the mutt fans named him the 'Evil Genius' instead of the HBC...
For an even bigger 'turd in the punch bowl' than Clemp's-son, try BS-U.
2006 BSU 43 - 42 Chokelahoma.
In 2005, OU had the #7 class, while BSU wasn't even in the Top 25, maybe not even in the Top 50.
With 1-2-3 star recruits, over a 5 year span 2002>06, BSU went 58-7
And they went 3-2 in their Bowls, beating OU, TCU, and IoSt.
I liked DE L.Ancrum when he was brought in, but some here ragged on him for being another wasted ship, because he was just rated as a 2 star.
However, when you compare his stats over the last 2 seasons with 5 star DE A.Clayton, they are very close to the same.
Closer to home, UGA also almost always had higher rated recruits and classes, but SOS still beat the snot outta them so often (11-1) that the mutt fans named him the 'Evil Genius' instead of the HBC...
You notice those teams like BSU come down to earth when joining a Power 5 conference because the schedule takes a toll on you that they don't deal with in those lower conferences.Ocala, how about this jewel....
For an even bigger 'turd in the punch bowl' than Clemp's-son, try BS-U.
2006 BSU 43 - 42 Chokelahoma.
In 2005, OU had the #7 class, while BSU wasn't even in the Top 25, maybe not even in the Top 50.
With 1-2-3 star recruits, over a 5 year span 2002>06, BSU went 58-7
And they went 3-2 in their Bowls, beating OU, TCU, and IoSt.
I liked DE L.Ancrum when he was brought in, but some here ragged on him for being another wasted ship, because he was just rated as a 2 star.
However, when you compare his stats over the last 2 seasons with 5 star DE A.Clayton, they are very close to the same.
Closer to home, UGA also almost always had higher rated recruits and classes, but SOS still beat the snot outta them so often (11-1) that the mutt fans named him the 'Evil Genius' instead of the HBC...
Utah and TCU came down to earth once they joined power conferences. Those undefeated and 1 loss seasons are very hard to come by in the Power 5 conferences.
Utah had 5 double digit win seasons in the 8 years prior to joining a power 5 conference and are only 53-36 in their new conference with only one double digit win season in the last 7 years.
TCU had 6 double digit win seasons in the Mountain West in just 7 years but are only 51-27 in the Big 12 since they made the move.
Last edited:
Conference, or coaching changes? You're trying to ignore 1/2 of the W/L formula.
That said, even with several differen coaching changes, BSU is still a pretty good team most years with their 1-2-3 stars...
2017 11-3 BSU 38 - 28 Ore in the Las Vegas Bowl.
2015 9-4 BSU 55 - 7 N.ILL in Poinsetta Bowl
2014 12-2 BSU 38 - 30 Arizona in Fiesta Bowl
2012 11-2 BSU 28 - 26 Washington in Las Vegas Bowl
Quality student/athletes matter,,, always.
The difference I have is that the stars don't always correctly predict which recruits are the best fit for any individual school-coach-system, and therefore, their individual and/or team ratings, while worth a look most times, are certainly not the 'be all - end all' indicator of a teams success.
While Clemp's-son is the consistent Power 5 proof.
That said, even with several differen coaching changes, BSU is still a pretty good team most years with their 1-2-3 stars...
2017 11-3 BSU 38 - 28 Ore in the Las Vegas Bowl.
2015 9-4 BSU 55 - 7 N.ILL in Poinsetta Bowl
2014 12-2 BSU 38 - 30 Arizona in Fiesta Bowl
2012 11-2 BSU 28 - 26 Washington in Las Vegas Bowl
Quality student/athletes matter,,, always.
The difference I have is that the stars don't always correctly predict which recruits are the best fit for any individual school-coach-system, and therefore, their individual and/or team ratings, while worth a look most times, are certainly not the 'be all - end all' indicator of a teams success.
While Clemp's-son is the consistent Power 5 proof.
