Recruiting never stops. Neither do your questions.
And if we didn’t get to your question, don’t be discouraged! We will be addressing some on “Stars Matter,” our weekly recruiting podcast, which can be found on the feed of “The Andy Staples Show.” Look for new episodes every Thursday morning.
Note: Submitted questions have been lightly edited for clarity and length.
If looking at stars alone doesn’t paint as accurate of a picture as maybe it once did, how would you ideally measure the true talent of a team’s roster, taking into account development (or lack thereof), careers derailed by injury, transfers, etc? — Aaron H.
The current model was so successful for the past 20 years because it was all about the law of averages. The main gripe most people have with the 247Sports Talent Composite is that it doesn’t take into account players who are currently performing differently than their recruiting rankings indicated, whether that means a five-star player is a bust or a three-star player has turned into a future first-round NFL Draft pick. People also don’t like that five-star prospects who don’t play — for whatever reason — factor into the formula. Those two gripes make sense on the surface, but you have to dig deeper.
Over the course of 85 scholarships, it all averages out. A team with 20 five-star prospects can absorb busts at a much higher rate than a team with three five-star prospects. Also, teams with a wealth of talent also have three-star prospects who outperform their recruiting rankings. Think Jordan Davis of Georgia last year. There are a million players like Davis on the loaded rosters. So while some teams may seem to be better at developing middle-tier prospects, the powerhouse teams with the most talent on their roster are just better. Those recruiting juggernauts also are able to withstand injuries because depth stacked with top-100 players is far more valuable than depth consisting of developmental projects.
It’s all in the numbers, baby.
Things are changing now, though. They haven’t changed completely — as we are less than a week away from (likely) seeing Georgia’s stars prevail yet again — but they are changing. TCU has proven that this year given the Horned Frogs rank No. 32 in the team talent composite and are playing for the national title. I would be remiss, though, if I didn’t mention TCU’s journey to the national title game was aided by not having to play a single game this year against a roster like Georgia’s. We’ll see if the Horned Frogs can overcome that.
What TCU has done, without question, is make us ponder how we actually look at the overall talent on teams as we project what those teams are capable of. I will admit right here, right now that if you would have asked me if TCU could play for the national title this season — by looking only at its roster — I likely would have bet my mortgage against it. And I would have been wrong. So my oversimplification of the process — even if Georgia wins — clearly has to be refined. We all have to refine it in this era of college football recruiting, a time during which rosters can be flipped in one offseason and there are more than 1,000 players in the transfer portal.
TCU had issues coming into this year, and those issues were rectified immediately by Sonny Dykes in his first season. How? Because he could add transfers to plug the holes.
Though the 247Sports Team Talent Composite takes into account transfers by assigning their high school ratings to their new teams, I think it is necessary to reevaluate these players when they become free agents to get a more sensible average. If a player enters the portal, we assign that player a new rating. Does JT Daniels account for a five-star? Probably not. Does a graduate transfer who was a three-star prospect out of high school and who started for three years at his previous school bring three-star value to his new school? Probably not. Probably more like a low-end four-star. This is information we have and can employ for better rankings.
Someone floated the idea of reevaluating everyone after every year, and that would be a fun undertaking, but it seems kind of impossible given we often don’t know how much better young developing talent has become after a year or two riding the bench. I marvel at how some coaches evaluate transfers who haven’t played at their previous stops. Most of the time they are relying on high school tape.
It would also be interesting to factor experience into the equation. A four-star junior should probably weigh more in the formula than a five-star freshman. An all-conference player should get a bonus. Injuries should factor in. There are many other categories we could fiddle with, too.
The truth is, I’d never really want to abandon the rankings we have right now. I think the baseline talent on rosters is a telling stat, and it will always be telling, regardless of whether we recalculate or not. I’m not even truly convinced that recalculating the formula based on all the guidelines I listed above would be more accurate. Georgia has 68 blue-chip players on its roster right now. It has almost as many five-star prospects as TCU has blue-chip players. How do we think the game is going to play out?
That said, relying solely on composite rankings only accurately projects who the eventual national champion is going to be. And I can admit that strips the fun away for the majority of fan bases, and I’m going to try to keep that in perspective in 2023. Call it a New Year’s resolution so my comments section isn’t so hostile.
Recruiting rankings indicate the most talented teams. Regular-season records indicate the most deserving teams. What does the four “best” teams mean? — Flavio M.
Part of the reason people get so angry at me in the comments is because I’m convicted in what I say. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but when I think something, it’s communicated sternly and confidently. So let me come out and say this right now: I think Alabama is a better football team than TCU. I truly believe that if Alabama didn’t lose to LSU on the last play of the game, we would be getting another Georgia-Alabama national championship game.
If Alabama and TCU played on a neutral field tomorrow, who would you pick to win? I know who I’d pick.
You feel that anger rising up through your chest? Don’t scroll down to the comments and insult me. Keep reading.
That’s the difference between “best” and “most deserving.” Alabama is not in the College Football Playoff this year because it lost two games, even if everyone knows in their heart — whether they’d admit it or not — that the Crimson Tide have better players and likely would win that game. If “stars” and recruiting rankings played a role in the Playoff committee’s discussion, then Alabama would have gotten in. But it didn’t.
The four best teams aren’t always in the Playoff. The four most deserving teams are. There is some wiggle room there because supremely talented teams often get the benefit of the doubt. That’s not because we are playing games on paper, but because when you’re comparing a one-loss Alabama team to a one-loss TCU team, who do we think is better? Alabama has better players. That’s a fact, even if you take into account that TCU had a Heisman Trophy finalist for a quarterback and a Jim Thorpe Award winner on defense.
That’s why the Horned Frogs needed Alabama to lose a second game. That second loss removed the committee’s ability to give the Crimson Tide the benefit of the doubt, and then “most deserving” took precedent.
To me, that’s the difference. We all know who the better teams are just by looking at the numbers and watching the games. But they play the games in order to sift through those hypothetical scenarios, and now we get to see TCU take on Georgia.
Regardless of what side of the fence you fall on — because there are certainly going to be people in my comments now who will get mad at the assertion that Alabama is better than TCU — I do think the committee, though confusing and frustrating during the season, gets it right in the end every year.
Should the number of recruits a team signs ever be counted in how their ranking is determined? Shouldn’t it be quality over quantity, right? — Robin C.
As the formula exists right now, you do get points for every commitment, regardless of rank. That’s the reason why we will never see a team that signs “only” 20 players win the recruiting crown. The rankings are flawed because, as you stated in the question, quantity plays a big factor. Also, quantity in a class is directly related to how many spots a program has on its roster for the following year.
That is why I use the average player rating metric more. That metric is there to determine the quality of a class independent of its ranking.
For instance, Florida’s 2023 class ranks No. 12 nationally, which seems underwhelming. But it currently has only 20 commitments, fewer than all but one of the 11 teams ahead of it in the rankings. The Gators have a 92.34 average player rating, which is higher than seven of the teams ahead of them in the team rankings.
All of that is to say that Florida’s class is top five in quality but outside of the top 10 in quantity. Still, you may rather have a class ranked ahead of Florida’s because more bodies gives you more margin for error.
Truthfully, the rankings are fine, but they aren’t always great without the proper context. The proper context is the average player rating, which should never be overlooked when using the rankings as a guide.
(Photo: Kevin Abele / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
