Quarterback Recruiting Analysis: Clemson vs. ACC Atlantic 2006 to Present


We'll continue our recruiting comparison today by looking at Clemson's quarterback recruiting since 2006 to ACC Atlantic foes.  I am going to talk about only the numbers (players signed and their "star" ratings) and not the circumstances surrounding the classes.  If you want to see my opinion on the actual Clemson players, I've put together a quick and dirty breakdown that can be viewed here.

It is pretty obvious that the quarterback position is a different animal than other positions because it is probably the most important position on the field, there is typically little in-game substitution at this position, and it takes time to transition a high school athlete into a collegiate QB.  Because of the position's importance, the constant threat of injury, and the huge learning curve for the position, it is important to have 3-4 capable quarterbacks with each optimally in a different graduating class.  This puts a necessity on bringing in at least one good quarterback (minimal) every other class.

Assumptions made in creating this article can be found here.  I should point out that we strictly used www.scout.com position classifications.  It is possible that some players ended up at a different position after they arrived on campus for any of the schools in this article.

Table I and Figure 1 (below) both illustrate Clemson's ranking based on QB class size since 2006.  Clemson (at 1.33 players per class) recruited fewer QB's than only Boston College.  The Tigers recruited the same number of players as NCST and eclipsed FSU, UMd, and Wake in terms of raw numbers.  Overall, the average ACC Atlantic football program brought in slightly fewer (0.05 per class) than Clemson did from 2006-present.

Notable items in this category include Boston College's four QB's in 2008 and Clemson's three in a class this past February.  Overall, Clemson appears to be in good shape numbers-wise compared to their ACC Atlantic peers although we would have liked to see one QB taken in '10 to better spread out the age of CU's QB staff.

Table I:  Recruiting Class Size

Class Size

Team

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

AVERAGE

Clemson

1

1

2

1

0

3

1.33

Boston College

2

2

4

2

2

1

2.17

Florida State

1

0

1

1

1

1

0.83

Maryland

1

0

1

2

2

0

1.00

North Carolina State

1

2

2

1

1

1

1.33

Wake Forest

1

1

1

1

1

1

1.00

ACC Atlantic Average

1.2

1

1.8

1.4

1.4

0.8

1.27

 

Players_signed_individual_team_graph_clem_vs_acc_medium
Figure 1:  Individual Institution Recruiting Class Size

Players_signed_graph_clem_vs_acc_medium
Figure 2:  Average non-Clemson vs Clemson Recruiting Class Size

 

Table II and Figure 3 show the average star-rating per player for each team, as shown below.  Clemson (3.52 stars/player) led the division in average star-rating.  Clemson benefitted greatly from the '07 (Willy Korn) and '09 (Tajh Boyd) classes en-route to the top of the Atlantic.  Florida State finished just behind CU at 3.30 stars per player. The ‘Noles average was helped drastically by signing E.J. Manuel in '08.  Overall, Clemson was around 0.70 stars per player better than the ACC Atlantic average.  Maryland, at 3.10, was the only other ACC Atlantic school over 3 stars per player.

Table II:  ACC Atlantic Team Average Player Star Rating

Average Star Rating (per player)

Team

Service

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

AVERAGE

Clemson

Scout

3.00

4.00

3.00

5.00

NA

2.67

3.53

Rivals

3.00

4.00

3.50

4.00

NA

3.00

3.50

Average

3.00

4.00

3.25

4.50

NA

2.83

3.52

Boston College

Scout

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.50

2.50

3.00

2.42

Rivals

2.00

2.50

2.50

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.50

Average

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.25

2.75

3.00

2.46

Florida State

Scout

3.00

NA

5.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.40

Rivals

3.00

NA

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.20

Average

3.00

NA

4.50

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.30

Maryland

Scout

3.00

NA

2.00

3.00

3.50

NA

2.88

Rivals

4.00

NA

NA

3.00

3.00

NA

3.33

Average

3.50

NA

2.00

3.00

3.25

NA

3.10

North Carolina State

Scout

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.83

Rivals

3.00

2.00

3.50

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.92

Average

3.00

2.00

3.25

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.88

Wake Forest

Scout

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.50

Rivals

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.83

Average

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.50

2.50

3.00

2.67

ACC Atlantic Average

Scout

2.60

2.33

3.10

2.70

2.80

3.00

2.76

Rivals

2.80

2.50

3.25

2.80

3.00

3.00

2.89

Average

2.70

2.42

3.05

2.75

2.90

3.00

2.82

 

 Players_star_rating_individual_team_graph_clem_vs_acc_medium

Figure 3:  ACC Atlantic Schools' Recruiting Average Player Star Rating

Players_star_rating_graph_clem_vs_acc_medium
Figure 4:  Average ACC Atlantic vs Clemson Recruiting Class Average Player Star Rating 

On average (overall from 2006 to present), and just looking at these numbers, Clemson appears to be above average compared to their ACC Atlantic foes.  Clemson averaged one and a third QB's per class and over three and a half stars per quarterback, both of which beat the Atlantic average.  We would have liked to see Clemson spread their signings out a better by bringing in a QB in 2010 and possibly not taking three in '11. 

SB Nation Featured Video
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Shakin The Southland

You must be a member of Shakin The Southland to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Shakin The Southland. You should read them.

Join Shakin The Southland

You must be a member of Shakin The Southland to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Shakin The Southland. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker