Quarterback Recruiting Analysis: Clemson vs. non-ACC 2006 to Present

AUBURN AL - SEPTEMBER 18: Quarterback Kyle Parker #11 of the Clemson Tigers passes against the Auburn Tigers at Jordan-Hare Stadium on September 18 2010 in Auburn Alabama. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

Here we compare CU's QB recruiting over the past six classes with teams outside the Atlantic Coast Conference.  Again, we'll talk only about the core numbers and not about circumstances surrounding these items.  We did a quick and dirty breakdown of the specific QB situation at Clemson earlier.  Follow this link to see what each signee did while at CU and what we thought of the scholarship allocation. 

Again, the quarterback position is different animal than other positions and we think 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 Auburn (1.67 per class) and South Carolina (1.5 per class).  The Tigers eclipsed all other schools in terms of players signed.  Overall, the average non-ACC football program brought in slightly fewer (0.05 per class) than Clemson did from 2006-present.

Notable items in this category include AU's three QB class in '11 and Clemson's three in a class this past February.  Overall, Clemson appears to be in good shape numbers-wise compared to the other teams in this survey.

Table I:  Recruiting Class Size

Class Size

Team

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

AVERAGE

Clemson

1

1

2

1

0

3

1.33

Alabama

1

1

1

1

1

1

1.00

Auburn

2

1

3

2

1

1

1.67

Georgia

1

1

0

2

1

1

1.00

LSU

0

1

1

2

1

2

1.17

South Carolina

2

1

2

1

2

1

1.50

South Florida

2

1

2

0

1

1

1.17

Non-Clemson Average

1.2

1

1.4

1.6

1.2

1.2

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) lagged behind all teams except South Carolina (3.00) and South Florida (2.60) in average star ratings.  Overall, the Georgia Bulldogs led the field at 4.05 stars per player, followed by Auburn (3.86 stars per player) and LSU (3.70 stars per player).  There were too many good QB's to list here, so see Table III for a list of quarterbacks signed who gathered at least a four star rating from BOTH Rivals and Scout.

Overall, Clemson was a little 0.06 stars better than the non-ACC average.  Clemson is only above the average here because South Carolina and South Florida dragged down an impressive average.  If you omit SCAR and S Florida, the other teams' average star rating per player is 3.78 stars.

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

Alabama

Scout

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

3.00

3.67

Rivals

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.50

Average

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.50

3.00

3.58

Auburn

Scout

3.50

5.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

3.92

Rivals

3.00

4.00

3.33

3.50

5.00

4.00

3.81

Average

3.25

4.50

3.17

3.25

4.50

4.50

3.86

Georgia

Scout

5.00

4.00

NA

4.50

3.00

4.00

4.10

Rivals

5.00

4.00

NA

4.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

Average

5.00

4.00

NA

4.25

3.00

4.00

4.05

LSU

Scout

NA

4.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

3.50

3.50

Rivals

NA

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.50

3.90

Average

NA

4.00

3.50

4.00

3.50

3.50

3.70

South Carolina

Scout

2.50

4.00

3.00

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.83

Rivals

3.50

4.00

3.00

3.00

2.50

3.00

3.17

Average

3.00

4.00

3.00

2.50

2.50

3.00

3.00

South Florida

Scout

2.50

3.00

2.50

NA

2.00

2.00

2.40

Rivals

2.00

3.00

3.00

NA

3.00

3.00

2.80

Average

2.25

3.00

2.75

NA

2.50

2.50

2.60

Non-Clemson Average

Scout

3.30

3.83

3.10

3.50

3.25

3.42

3.40

Rivals

3.30

3.67

3.47

3.70

3.58

3.42

3.52

Average

3.30

3.75

3.28

3.60

3.42

3.42

3.46

Players_star_rating_individual_team_graph_clem_vs_acc_medium
Figure 3:  Individual Schools' Recruiting Average Player Star Rating

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

The players listed below each garnered four star ratings from BOTH Rivals.com and Scout.com.

Table III:  Quarterbacks with a Four Star or Better Rating from BOTH Scout and Rivals 

Player

Class

Scout

Rivals

High School

Hometown

HT/WT/40

College

Star Jackson

2008

4

4

Lake Worth HS

Lake Worth, FL

6-3/205/4.50

Alabama

A.J. McCarron

2009

4

4

St. Pauls Episcopal School

Mobile, AL

6-3.5/180

Alabama

Phillip Sims

2010

5

4

Oscar F. Smith HS

Chesapeake, VA

6-2/215/4.70

Alabama

Neil Caudle

2006

4

4

Spain Park HS

Hoover, AL

6-2/192/4.60

Auburn

Kodi Burns

2007

5

4

Northside HS

Fort Smith, AR

6-2/190

Auburn

Tyrik Rollison

2009

4

4

Sulphur Springs HS

Sulphur Springs, TX

6-2/186/4.65

Auburn

Cam Newton

2010

4

5

Blinn College

Brenham, TX

6-6/245/4.52

Auburn

Kiehl Frazier

2011

5

4

Shiloh Christian Schools

Springdale, AR

6-3/215/4.57

Auburn

Willy Korn

2007

4

4

James F Byrnes HS

Duncan, SC

6-2/200/4.62

Clemson

Kyle Parker

2008

4

4

Bartram Trail HS

Jacksonville, FL

6-1/180/4.65

Clemson

Tajh Boyd

2009

5

4

Phoebus HS

Hampton, VA

6-1/210/4.60

Clemson

Matthew Stafford

2006

5

5

Highland Park HS

Dallas, TX

6-2.5/212/4.75

Georgia

Logan Gray

2007

4

4

Rock Bridge Sr. HS

Columbia, MO

6-2.5/175/4.55

Georgia

Zach Mettenberger

2009

4

4

Oconee County HS

Watkinsville, GA

6-5/228

Georgia

Aaron Murray

2009

5

4

Plant Senior HS

Tampa, FL

6-1/205/4.70

Georgia

Christian LeMay

2011

4

4

David W Butler HS

Matthews, NC

6-2/188/4.64

Georgia

Jarrett Lee

2007

4

4

Brenham HS

Brenham, TX

6-3/190/4.70

LSU

Russell Shepard

2009

5

5

Cypress Ridge HS

Houston, TX

6-2/185

LSU

Zach Mettenberger

2011

4

4

Butler County (KS)

El Dorado, KS

6-5.5/250/5.30

LSU

Stephen Garcia

2007

4

4

Jefferson Senior HS

Tampa, FL

6-3/212/4.70

South Carolina

On average (from 2006 to present), and just looking at (all) these numbers, Clemson appears to be on par in terms of players signed and average star rating compared to their non-ACC foes.  These numbers look different when you pull USC and South Florida out of the fold, as the other schools in this survey pulled in some ridiculous talent over the past six years.  If CU wants to catch the Georgia's and Auburn's in terms of talent level, we'll need to pull in more Tajh Boyd-like players.  Again, we would have liked to see a quarterback signed in 2010, but Clemson did sign three in '11.

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,

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