Today, we compare Clemson's special teams recruiting endeavors to ACC Coastal teams. 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 ball after they arrived on campus for any of the schools in this article.
We probably need to tell you that this analysis is very different from the others because special teams is extremely unique. Typically, special teams units are largely composed of non-starting position players and walk-ons. Many specialists, particularly kickers, who play vital roles in the games are preferred walk-ons who are able to earn playing time through special teams. We'll show the data for special teams recruiting but don't really know how vital all these numbers are based upon the impact of non-starters who play special teams and the large number of walk-ons we see week after week.
Table I and Figure 1 (below) both illustrate Clemson's ranking based on defensive line class size since 2006. Clemson (at 0.67 players per class) was tied with a host of other teams for most players annually signed. Interestingly, Virginia Tech had the fewest ST players signed since 2006 with one signee in 2009.
Table I: Recruiting Class Size
Class Size |
|||||||
Team |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
AVERAGE |
Clemson |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.67 |
Duke |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.67 |
Georgia Tech |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0.33 |
Miami (Fl) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.67 |
North Carolina |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0.67 |
Virginia |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.33 |
Virginia Tech |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0.17 |
ACC Coastal Average |
0.4 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
1 |
0.53 |
Figure 1: Individual Institution Recruiting Class Size
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 (2.58 stars/player) finished behind Miami (2.67) in this category. Clemson's average was buoyed by signing Greer native Richard Jackson (three stars with both services) back in the 2006 class.
We show all special teams players signed by Clemson and Coastal division teams in Table III
Table II: ACC Coastal Team Average Player Star Rating
Average Star Rating (per player) |
||||||||
Team |
Service |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
AVERAGE |
Clemson |
Scout |
3.00 |
NA |
2.50 |
NA |
NA |
3.00 |
2.83 |
Rivals |
3.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
2.33 |
|
Average |
3.00 |
NA |
2.25 |
NA |
NA |
2.50 |
2.58 |
|
Duke |
Scout |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
3.00 |
2.25 |
Rivals |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
Average |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
2.50 |
2.13 |
|
Georgia Tech |
Scout |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
Rivals |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
Average |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
Miami (Fl) |
Scout |
4.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
2.50 |
2.83 |
Rivals |
3.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
2.50 |
2.50 |
|
Average |
3.50 |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
2.50 |
2.67 |
|
North Carolina |
Scout |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
Rivals |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
Average |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
Virginia |
Scout |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
Rivals |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
|
Average |
NA |
2.00 |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
|
Virginia Tech |
Scout |
NA |
NA |
NA |
3.00 |
NA |
NA |
3.00 |
Rivals |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
NA |
NA |
2.00 |
|
Average |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2.50 |
NA |
NA |
2.50 |
|
ACC Coastal Average |
Scout |
3.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.38 |
2.31 |
Rivals |
2.50 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.13 |
2.10 |
|
Average |
2.75 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.25 |
2.00 |
2.25 |
2.21 |
Figure 3: ACC Atlantic Schools' Recruiting Average Player Star Rating
Figure 4: Average ACCCoastal vs Clemson Recruiting Class Average Player Star Rating
Table III: ACC Coastal Special Teams Signees (2006 to Present)
Player |
Class |
Scout |
Rivals |
High School |
Hometown |
HT/WT/40 |
College |
Position |
Richard Jackson |
2006 |
3 |
3 |
Riverside HS |
Greer, SC |
5-11/180/4.70 |
Clemson |
K |
2008 |
2 |
2 |
Myrtle Beach HS |
Myrtle Beach, SC |
6-3/190 |
Clemson |
K |
|
2008 |
3 |
2 |
Brookwood HS |
Snellville, GA |
6-2/195 |
Clemson |
P |
|
Ammon Lakip |
2011 |
3 |
2 |
Chattahoochee HS |
Alpharetta, GA |
5-11/175 |
Clemson |
K |
Justin Moore |
2010 |
2 |
2 |
Marist School |
Atlanta, GA |
5-10/160 |
Georgia Tech |
K |
Sean Tobin |
2011 |
2 |
2 |
St. John Vianney Regl HS |
Holmdel, NJ |
6-3/230 |
Georgia Tech |
LS |
2006 |
4 |
3 |
Jupiter HS |
Jupiter, FL |
6-1/180 |
Miami (Fl) |
K |
|
2008 |
2 |
2 |
Lincoln-Way Central HS |
New Lenox, IL |
6-1.5/175 |
Miami (Fl) |
K |
|
Dalton Botts |
2011 |
2 |
3 |
Moorpark |
Moorpark, CA |
6-3/200 |
Miami (Fl) |
P |
Matt Goudis |
2011 |
3 |
2 |
Chaminade College Prep |
West Hills, CA |
6-0/165 |
Miami (Fl) |
K |
Terrence Brown |
2007 |
NA |
NA |
Fresno |
Fresno, CA |
-/- |
North Carolina |
P |
2007 |
2 |
2 |
Scotland HS |
Laurinburg, NC |
6-3/175 |
North Carolina |
K |
|
2009 |
2 |
2 |
Ridgewood HS |
Ridgewood, NJ |
5-11/180 |
North Carolina |
P |
|
Miller Snyder |
2011 |
2 |
2 |
Myers Park HS |
Charlotte, NC |
6-2/185 |
North Carolina |
K |
2009 |
3 |
2 |
Giles HS |
Pearisburg, VA |
5-11/175 |
Virginia Tech |
K |
|
Kevin Jones |
2006 |
2 |
2 |
Bowie HS |
Austin, TX |
6-4/215 |
Duke |
P |
2007 |
2 |
2 |
St. Thomas Aquinas HS |
Overland Park, KS |
6-4/180 |
Duke |
P |
|
2008 |
2 |
2 |
Xaverian Brothers HS |
Westwood, MA |
6-2/200 |
Duke |
K |
|
Will Monday |
2011 |
3 |
2 |
Flowery Branch HS |
Flowery Branch, GA |
6-3/180 |
Duke |
P |
2007 |
2 |
2 |
Providence HS |
Charlotte, NC |
6-1.5/190 |
Virginia |
K |
|
2008 |
2 |
2 |
West Florence HS |
Florence, SC |
6-6/240/4.90 |
Virginia |
P |
Again, with special teams being comprised on walk-ons and position players, it is tough to fully understand what these numbers really mean. Even with kickers, many starting kickers/punters come to school as a walk-on or preferred walk-on and earn the kicking duties through almost a tryout process. This system makes a meaningful recruiting analysis extremely difficult when you base your opinions on the Scout/Rivals ratings only.