Evaluating the 2009-2013 Coastal Division Recruiting Classes

Joshua S. Kelly-US PRESSWIRE

We need to look at the recruiting trends over the past few cycles to see where Clemson fits in with its Coastal Division brethren. For this exercise, we’ll look at the 2009 through the 2013 cycles to capture true freshmen through this season’s redshirt seniors. Obviously, things can happen between each player’s signing day and today but the items below should show overall recruiting trends and data to give a starting point for discussion. As always, we encourage you to go out, form your own opinions, then come back and discuss your thoughts on all these matters. I’ll also point out that data shown below were obtained from the recruiting "experts" (www.scout.com and www.rivals.com) so that we had an independent qualitative measure to discuss here for all teams in the Coastal Division.

I’ll apologize in advance for the clutter within each chart. I want to show a lot of data in one spot and hope that you can digest the various colors associated with eight teams and six data sets for each team. I am including the raw data below each chart to allow for better understanding of the data.

Class size is, as we’ve mentioned here over and over again, a function of roster management. Assuming a staff has been in place for a while, you can find patterns through these numbers and can make inferences on the management strategies. There are obvious disruptions (players leaving school prior to graduation for various reasons, oversigning, etc…) that can affect these numbers. Enough of the prep and on to the good stuff.

Here are the yearly numbers for each Coastal team plus Clemson.

2009-2013_players_signed_yearly_medium

Now we’ll point to the overall average numbers, followed by the raw data.

2009-2013_players_signed_average_medium

Class Size

Team

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

AVERAGE

Clemson

12

24

29

20

23

21.6

Duke

27

20

20

20

20

21.4

Georgia Tech

21

18

22

17

14

18.4

Miami (FL)

19

30

16

33

19

23.4

North Carolina

29

21

25

23

17

23

Pittsburgh

20

24

22

18

27

22.2

Virginia

26

18

26

26

22

23.6

Virginia Tech

22

19

21

28

19

21.8

Miami and Virginia lead the pack in terms of class size average. You’ll note that Miami had two classes featuring 30 or more players. Virginia had three classes that consisted of 26 players. Clemson’s average of 21.6 players per class is more than only Duke and GT. I will, as always, point out that the 12 person 2009 class was an anomaly caused by staff turmoil and likely played a big part in bringing Clemson’s average down.

The quality aspect is always a tough one to quantify. We’ve again chosen to utilize www.scout.com and www.rivals.com data to help quantitatively assess player quality for each team’s class. This information is shown below. Clemson led all Coastal members in terms of average stars per player over the time period. Do notice that Miami, UNC, and VPI each averaged over 3 stars per player over the course of this time period and all members of this division except Duke averaged over 2.8 stars per player from ’09 through ’13. The real team to take note of here is UVa. He Wahoos have improved dramatically the past three cycles and are making a push to sit in the 2.9 to 3.0 stars per player range instead of the 2.67 rating we saw out of the Cavaliers in early data.

Here we have the yearly numbers.

2009-2013_star_rankings_yearly_medium

And the overall average followed by raw data.

2009-2013_star_rankings_average_medium

Average Star Rating (per player)

Team

Service

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

AVERAGE

Clemson

Scout

3.58

3.09

3.24

3.35

3.35

3.32

Rivals

3.50

3.35

3.34

3.45

3.30

3.39

Average

3.54

3.22

3.29

3.40

3.33

3.36

Duke

Scout

2.44

2.40

2.60

2.50

2.50

2.49

Rivals

2.63

2.50

2.55

2.60

2.55

2.57

Average

2.54

2.45

2.58

2.55

2.53

2.53

Georgia Tech

Scout

2.95

3.00

2.73

2.88

2.86

2.88

Rivals

2.95

3.17

2.91

3.00

2.71

2.95

Average

2.95

3.08

2.82

2.94

2.79

2.92

Miami (FL)

Scout

3.37

3.10

3.25

3.21

3.37

3.26

Rivals

3.53

3.20

3.06

3.36

3.44

3.32

Average

3.45

3.15

3.16

3.29

3.41

3.29

North Carolina

Scout

3.25

3.14

3.16

2.83

3.24

3.12

Rivals

3.36

3.14

3.28

3.04

3.12

3.19

Average

3.30

3.14

3.22

2.93

3.18

3.16

Pittsburgh

Scout

3.10

3.21

2.68

3.11

2.89

3.00

Rivals

2.95

3.17

2.67

3.06

2.81

2.93

Average

3.03

3.19

2.67

3.08

2.85

2.96

Virginia

Scout

2.50

2.56

3.04

2.85

2.82

2.75

Rivals

2.84

2.78

3.04

2.92

3.00

2.92

Average

2.67

2.67

3.04

2.88

2.91

2.83

Virginia Tech

Scout

2.77

3.05

2.90

2.82

3.16

2.94

Rivals

3.09

3.26

3.05

3.18

3.28

3.17

Average

2.93

3.16

2.98

3.00

3.22

3.06

While Clemson has out-recruited this division over the course of this data period, teams like Miami, North Carolina, and Virginia Tech are continually hanging close to Clemson’s star per player average. This is a stark contrast to the Atlantic where FSU and Clemson have dominated the rest of the conference in recruiting (with FSU leading Clemson here).

Overall, Clemson looks to have the best overall recruiting package of the folks shown above. The Coastal does, however, present much closer competition than the Atlantic where FSU and Clemson rule the roost. The Coastal features UNC, Miami, and VPI who have consistently brought in talent and Virginia that has improved over the years.

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