This week we will get an idea of the talent on both Clemson's and Miami's squads based solely on data pulled from Rivals and Scout.
Below, we show in Figure 1 the average annual star rankings for both squads. Both teams give you what you would expect out of decent football schools...an average ranking that is over 3 stars and five year average exceeding 3.25 stars. Clemson's numbers (again) are a little skewed by the 2009 class that was extremely small but contained some extremely talented players. In 2007, Miami killed Clemson on the recruiting trail per average star values. 2008 was pretty even. Miami held an advantage in '06 and Clemson had a higher average star rating in '10.
What does this tell us? Like last week, the average player recruited by either school has above average talent. I will admit that I was a little surprised when these numbers came out because I thought that Miami's average player rating over the past 5 years would have been substantially better than Clemson's. (more after the jump)
Figure 1: Yearly Average Recruiting Star Ratings
Figure 2, shown below, examines the class sizes of the past five recruiting classes for each school. Notice that Miami's class sizes were considerably larger than Clemson's. These numbers again indicate that our opponents the past two weeks have been able to bring in above average players (see Figure 1) in larger quantities than our Tigers (see below). Again, the extra numbers provide our opponent both a better probability of players who live up to/exceed their talent rating AND more quality depth. From a numbers basis, Miami appears to have a sizable advantage over Clemson's Tigers as they bring in, on average, four more players per class.
Figure 2: Class Size per Team
As expected from the data above and shown below in Figure 3, Miami was consistently ranked higher than Clemson in the average Rivals/Scout overall yearly rankings. Clemson did have the outlier year (2009) which hurt the Tigers when compared to the 'Canes. Other than the '09 campaign, Miami consistently had classes 5-10 spots better than Clemson. The overall rankings shows this disparity, as Miami averaged a ranking in the mid/upper 13's and Clemson averaging a class ranked between 20th and 25th nationally.
Figure 3: Annual National Recruiting Rankings
What do these numbers really mean? Like the Clemson/Auburn comparison, both teams recruiting quality players on average. Miami has been able to sign more of these players annually. More quality players equates to a better overall ranking from this recruiting source.
More quality players should again give our opponent an advantage with more quality backups AND quality Scout team players in practice. We will see if Miami can use their perceived superior "quality depth" against the Tigers Saturday in Death Valley.