Two Deep Recruiting Comparison: Clemson vs. Boston College 2010

by FIGUREFOUR on May 24, 2011 7:00 AM EDT in Recruiting

We continue to examine how Clemson's two-deep roster matched up to opponents from a season ago. Today we compare Clemson and Boston College just prior to their late October '10 football matchup. We were able to attain the two-deep roster posted on Tigernet prior to the Clemson/BC matchup for this exercise (special thanks to T-Net for this info and STS member RazzMcTazz for running down links to the pregame two-deep for us).

We should not have to tell you this, but there has been some commotion regarding what to take from these articles. We expect you, the reader, to form an opinion of your own. Often we will give you our take on things, but you should independently form your own thoughts based on information out there. This article shows recruiting data for the two-deep roster. It does not weigh experience nor does it evaluate coaching, preparation, etc... We think this is an interesting and valuable tool and useful in overall program evaluation because there is a link between these star ratings and other metrics in both college football and the NFL.

Keep in mind as you look through this data that only players who were officially signed were given a "Star Rating". Players who were not signed could not be quantitatively assessed a recruiting rating. Such players get a "NA" rating and were not included in the averaged data. Again, all data was attained from www.Scout.com and www.Rivals.com. Players whose Scout/Rivals data was not available but were signed were assigned a "NR".

Figure 1 and Table I both show an average of offensive players, defensive players, and specialist listed on the two-deep roster. Tables II through IV show the two-deep roster used for analysis along with the recruiting ratings for each player on the roster.

The matchup numbers show a Clemson team with superior recruiting talent. The Tigers averaged nearly a full star/player better than their Northeastern foe offensively, 0.56 stars per player better defensively, and 0.55 stars per player on special teams. Overall, Clemson maintained nearly ¾ of a star advantage per player over the Eagles.

Data can be seen below and after the Jump.

Figure 1: Average Star Rating per Player (Two-Deep Depth Chart)

Table I: Average Star Rating Per Player (Two-Deep Depth Chart)

Team	Recruiting Service	Offense	Defense	Specialists	Overall Average
Clemson	Scout	3.52	3.36	3.00	3.35
	Rivals	3.57	3.45	2.91	3.39
	Average	3.55	3.41	2.95	3.37
Boston College	Scout	2.39	2.80	2.30	2.53
	Rivals	2.74	2.90	2.50	2.75
	Average	2.57	2.85	2.40	2.64

Table II: Star Ratings per Offensive Player

Clemson Offense								Boston College Offense
Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals	Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals
LT	61	CHRIS HAIRSTON	6-7	325	*Gr.	2	3	LT	74	ANTHONY CASTONZO	6-7	308	Sr.	2	2
	63	Brandon Thomas	6-4	300	*Fr.	4	4		73	John Wetzel	6-8	303	So.	2	2
LG	73	DAVID SMITH	6-5	315	*Jr.	3	3	LG	75	NATHAN RICHMAN	6-6	300	Jr.	2	3
	62	Mason Cloy	6-3	295	*Jr.	3	3		77	Emmett Cleary	6-7	300	So.	2	3
C	55	DALTON FREEMAN	6-5	285	*So.	4	4	C	69	MARK SPINNEY	6-4	282	Jr.	4	3
	78	Ben Ramsey	6-4	280	*Sr.	N/A	N/A		75	Nathan Richman	6-6	300	Jr.	2	3
RG	74	ANTOINE McCLAIN	6-5	330	Jr.	4	4	RG	78	THOMAS CLAIBORNE	6-3	332	Sr.	2	3
	54	Matt Sanders	6-6	320	*So.	3	3		62	Ian White	6-5	288	Fr.	2	2
RT	72	LANDON WALKER	6-6	310	*Jr.	4	4	RT	66	RICHARD LAPHAM	6-8	323	Sr.	2	4
	79	Phillip Price	6-5	300	*Jr.	N/A	N/A		77	Emmett Cleary	6-7	300	So.	2	3
TE	83	DWAYNE ALLEN	6-4	255	*So.	4	4	TE	81	CHRIS PANTALE	6-6	248	So.	3	3
	82	Drew Traylor	6-5	245	*Jr.	3	2		87	Lars Anderson	6-3	240	Jr.	3	3
	80	Brandon Ford	6-4	220	*So.	3	4	WR	3	IFEANYI MOMAH	6-6	240	Sr.	2	3
WR	6	DeANDRE HOPKINS	6-1	195	Fr.	4	4		80	Johnathan Coleman	6-4	214	Fr.	2	2
	21	Xavier Dye	6-5	210	Sr.	3	3	QB	7	CHASE RETTIG	6-3	210	Fr.	3	3
QB	11	KYLE PARKER	6-1	200	*So.	4	4		16	Mike Marscovetra	6-4	210	So.	2	2
	10	Tajh Boyd	6-1	230	*Fr.	5	4	or	8	Josh Bordner	6-4	219	Fr.	2	3
RB	23	ANDRE ELLINGTON	5-10	190	*So.	4	4	RB	2	MONTEL HARRIS	5-10	200	Jr.	2	2
	8	Jamie Harper	6-0	235	Jr.	5	4		34	Andre Williams	6-0	216	Fr.	3	3
FB	30	CHAD DIEHL	6-2	265	*Jr.	2	3	FB	36	JAMES McCLUSKEY	6-2	252	Sr.	3	3
	48	Kasey Nobles	6-1	250	*Sr.	N/A	N/A		13	Codi Boek	6-3	239	Sr.	3	3
WR	18	JARON BROWN	6-2	200	*So.	3	3	WR	86	BOBBY SWIGERT	6-1	180	Fr.	3	3
	87	Terrance Ashe	6-2	200	*Gr.	N/A	N/A		83	Alex Amidon	5-11	186	Fr.	2	2
WR	7	BRYCE McNEAL	6-1	180	*Fr.	4	4
	26	Marquan Jones	6-0	195	Jr.	3	4

Table III: Star Ratings per Defensive Player

Clemson Defense								Boston College Defense
Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals	Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals
DE	93	Da'QUAN BOWERS	6-4	275	Jr.	5	5	DE	56	MAX HOLLOWAY	6-2	250	So.	2	3
	97	Malliciah Goodman	6-4	265	So.	4	4		33	Dan Williams	6-3	248	Jr.	3	3
NG	98	BRANDON THOMPSON	6-2	310	Jr.	4	4	LDT	96	KALEB RAMSEY	6-3	295	Jr.	4	3
	89	Miguel Chavis	6-5	285	Sr.	3	3		92	Dillon Quinn	6-6	299	Fr.	3	4
DT	99	JARVIS JENKINS	6-4	315	Sr.	4	4	RDT	55	DAMIK SCAFE	6-3	309	Sr.	3	3
	94	Rennie Moore	6-4	270	*Jr.	3	3		97	Conor O'Neal	6-3	286	So.	2	2
BE	40	ANDRE BRANCH	6-5	260	*Jr.	2	2	DE	47	BRAD NEWMAN	6-2	257	Sr.	2	2
	90	Kourtnei Brown	6-5	250	*Jr.	4	4		91	Kasim Edebali	6-2	248	Fr.	2	2
SLB	34	QUANDON CHRISTIAN	6-3	215	*Fr.	3	3	SLB	94	MARK HERZLICH	6-4	244	Sr.	3	3
	8	Justin Parker	6-1	225	Fr.	3	4		53	Mike Morrissey	6-2	225	Sr.	N/A	N/A
MLB	42	CORICO HAWKINS	5-11	230	So.	3	3	MLB	40	LUKE KUECHLY	6-3	235	So.	3	3
	33	Spencer Shuey	6-3	250	*Fr.	3	3		50	Will Thompson	6-1	235	Jr.	4	3
WLB	20	BRANDON MAYE	6-2	235	*Jr.	2	3	WLB	32	KEVIN PIERRE-LOUIS	6-1	215	Fr.	3	4
	46	Jonathan Willard	6-2	220	*So.	3	4		49	Steele Divitto	6-3	220	Fr.	4	3
CB	12	MARCUS GILCHRIST	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4	FCB	4	DONNIE FLETCHER	6-1	200	Jr.	3	3
	15	Coty Sensabaugh	6-0	180	*Jr.	2	2		18	C.J. Jones	5-11	173	Fr.	3	3
SS	2	DeANDRE McDANIEL	6-1	215	Sr.	4	4	SS	23	JIM NOEL	6-4	186	So.	3	3
	32	Carlton Lewis	6-3	215	*So.	3	3		26	Dominick LeGrande	6-3	215	Jr.	2	2
FS	5	JONATHAN MEEKS	6-1	205	So.	4	4	FS	27	OKECHUKWU OKOROHA	6-1	205	So.	3	4
or	31	RASHARD HALL	6-2	200	*So.	3	3		49	Hampton Hughes	6-3	200	So.	N/A	N/A
CB	29	XAVIER BREWER	5-11	190	*So.	4	3	BCB	9	DeLEON GAUSE	5-11	184	Sr.	2	2
or	36	BYRON MAXWELL	6-1	205	*Gr.	4	4		25	Chris Fox	5-11	198	Sr.	2	3

Table IV: Star Ratings per "Specialist"

Clemson Specialists								Boston College Specialists
Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals	Pos.	#	Player	Hgt	Wgt	Cl.	Scout	Rivals
PK	39	CHANDLER CATANZARO	6-2	205	*Fr.	N/A	N/A	PK	85	NATE FREESE	6-0	180	Fr.	2	2
	13	Spencer Benton	6-2	195	*So.	2	2		46	Ryan Quigley	6-3	189	Jr.	2	2
	19	Richard Jackson	6-0	195	*Gr.	3	3	P	46	RYAN QUIGLEY	6-3	189	Jr.	2	2
P	96	DAWSON ZIMMERMAN	6-2	205	Jr.	3	2		43	Gerald Levano	6-2	210	So.	N/A	N/A
	19	Richard Jackson	6-0	195	*Gr.	3	3	KO	85	Nate Freese	6-0	180	Fr.	2	2
KO	13	Spencer Benton	6-2	195	*So.	2	2	LS	57	Sean Flaherty	6-2	204	So.	N/A	N/A
LS	71	Matt Skinner	6-7	230	*So.	2	2		40	Luke Kuechly	6-3	235	So.	3	3
	52	Phillip Fajgenbaum	6-0	225	*Fr.	N/A	N/A	H	14	Billy Flutie	6-2	186	Sr.	2	2
H	16	Michael Wade	6-2	210	*Gr.	3	3		43	Gerald Levano	6-2	210	So.	N/A	N/A
	14	Donny McElveen	6-2	205	*Fr.	N/A	N/A	PR	2	Montel Harris	5-10	200	Jr.	2	2
PR	12	Marcus Gilchrist	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4		86	Bobby Swigert	6-1	180	Fr.	3	3
	18	Jaron Brown	6-2	200	*So.	3	3	KOR	25	Chris Fox	5-11	198	Sr.	2	3
KOR	23	Andre Ellington	5-10	190	*So.	4	4		84	Shakim Phillips	6-2	203	Fr.	3	4
	12	Marcus Gilchrist	5-11	190	Sr.	4	4

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There may be some southern bias in the star-ratings, but not THAT much.

Star rankings aren’t an exact science, but on average they are meaningful. Wow! Look up and down the rosters of those two teams and tell me how Clemson lost to BC. Dabo fans can make all the excuses they want, but to me this is a clear example of Dabo’s crew doing less with more and Spaziani’s crew doing more with less. This article (with the score written in magic marker across the top) should be hung on the wall in Dabo’s and TDP’s office.

FigureFour: Thanks again for doing this. Very interesting. What the did you mean by “there has been some commotion regarding what to take from these articles”? What commotion? The comments section hasn’t seemed very riled up. Did TDP or IPTAY send some goons over and threaten you not to do any more pre-game 2-deep analyses? Better wear a bullet-proof vest. There’s some big money involved here. :-)

by RazzMcTazz on May 25, 2011 5:11 AM EDT reply actions

Everyone has a different interpretation

BC fans will certainly just say that our players are overrated, but when they say that they must also say that all southern players are overrated because these guys are getting offers from the other big programs down here like FSU, UGA, UNC, AU, Bammer, etc.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 25, 2011 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions

There are a lot of folks who don’t think recruiting comparison via star rating is worhtwhile, for various reasons. We believe that recruiting the best talent is important and that the star ratings from national recruiting websites is about the best way that we can unbiasly capture data for a lot of schools.

There is no doubt that player development and execution of basic football fundamentals are the most important areas to be mastered if you want to win football games. (You probably have read the statement “You cannot outrecruit bad coaching” here more than once). However, having higher quality talent definitely gives you more tools to win games.

BC fans (in particular) are quick to bash the player quality theory by pointing to Clemson’s failures against the Eagles. To that point I’ll say this: Clemson’s incoming players are overall much more talented based on the opinions of the experts. Boston College has, over the years, done a better job developing players into good, hard nosed, fundamentally sound team members. Clemson did not lose to the Eagles last season because of a lack of talent but lost because BC’s coaching staff had that team better prepared to win than our staff did, plain and simple. That is what I take out of the recruiting data and from actually watching the football game.

Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com

by FIGUREFOUR on May 25, 2011 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Then they say we only care about star ratings

Which if you read this site more than once a month, you’d know to be the total opposite of truth.

We only use the star rating for data posts like this one. In each individual recruit’s case, I detail whether I think the rating is bullshit or not, if I even bothered to look it up. Ratings are done by guys like Jamie Newberg or Mike fucking Farrell.

Fact is, no independent viewer would look at these two teams and say the talent and speed was equal, whether you looked at the ratings or not. What you’d see last year is one team with their heads up their collective asses, and another that does what they set out to do without getting too complicated or flashy.

Shakinthesouthland.com-Clemson sports analysis

Follow Shakin the Southland on Twitter!

by DrB on May 25, 2011 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions