We recently looked at the 2012 recruiting cycle for the ACC Atlantic. We do realize that one recruiting class does not make a program. Accordingly, we want to put this class in perspective by looking at ACC Atlantic schools' results over the past five cycles. Five cycles were chosen because these are the only cycles that directly factor into the 2012 teams because players signed in 2008 and redshirted will be seniors this year (and all future classes have eligibility as well).
And....the typical disclaimer:
We should not have to tell you this, but some folks debate what to take from these articles and the data presented here. 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 all information available to you. When evaluating a particular player, we encourage you to view film for yourself and form your own opinions about a player. This article shows recruiting data for individual teams. It does not weigh experience nor does it evaluate coaching, preparation, etc... We think this is an interesting and valuable tool that is 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. A player whose Scout/Rivals data was not available but was signed was assigned a "NR". We picked carefully through the data and believe all is correct. However, if we've overlooked an item we apologize in advance and ask that you point it out so that we can make the correction in our database.
The Tables and Figures below/after the jump illustrate the recruiting star per player ranking for each team as well as the players signed data.
|
Average Star Rating (per player) |
|||||||
|
Team |
Service |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
AVERAGE |
|
Boston College |
Scout |
2.59 |
2.33 |
2.71 |
2.75 |
2.59 |
2.59 |
|
Rivals |
2.83 |
2.47 |
2.86 |
2.67 |
2.75 |
2.71 |
|
|
Average |
2.71 |
2.40 |
2.79 |
2.71 |
2.67 |
2.65 |
|
|
Clemson |
Scout |
3.32 |
3.58 |
3.09 |
3.24 |
3.35 |
3.32 |
|
Rivals |
3.40 |
3.50 |
3.35 |
3.34 |
3.45 |
3.41 |
|
|
Average |
3.36 |
3.54 |
3.22 |
3.29 |
3.40 |
3.36 |
|
|
Florida State |
Scout |
3.23 |
3.45 |
3.54 |
3.71 |
3.95 |
3.58 |
|
Rivals |
3.29 |
3.62 |
3.50 |
3.55 |
3.79 |
3.55 |
|
|
Average |
3.26 |
3.53 |
3.52 |
3.63 |
3.87 |
3.56 |
|
|
Maryland |
Scout |
2.67 |
2.85 |
2.86 |
2.67 |
2.75 |
2.76 |
|
Rivals |
3.18 |
3.08 |
3.10 |
2.81 |
2.91 |
3.01 |
|
|
Average |
2.92 |
2.96 |
2.98 |
2.74 |
2.83 |
2.89 |
|
|
NC State |
Scout |
3.00 |
2.63 |
2.89 |
2.50 |
2.64 |
2.73 |
|
Rivals |
2.88 |
2.78 |
3.05 |
2.75 |
2.77 |
2.85 |
|
|
Average |
2.94 |
2.70 |
2.97 |
2.63 |
2.70 |
2.79 |
|
|
Wake |
Scout |
2.41 |
2.43 |
2.56 |
2.56 |
2.47 |
2.49 |
|
Rivals |
2.47 |
2.55 |
2.74 |
2.73 |
2.84 |
2.67 |
|
|
Average |
2.44 |
2.49 |
2.65 |
2.65 |
2.66 |
2.58 |
|
|
Class Size |
||||||
|
Team |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
AVERAGE |
|
Boston College |
29 |
18 |
21 |
23 |
18 |
21.8 |
|
Clemson |
25 |
12 |
24 |
29 |
20 |
22 |
|
Florida State |
33 |
21 |
24 |
29 |
19 |
25.2 |
|
Maryland |
18 |
26 |
22 |
21 |
24 |
22.2 |
|
NC State |
26 |
27 |
19 |
20 |
22 |
22.8 |
|
Wake |
18 |
23 |
19 |
17 |
19 |
19.2 |
What you noticed through this data is that Clemson and FSU were the only two teams to lead the division in stars per player over this period. Clemson led in '08/'09 and FSU the last three cycles. Clemson and Florida State were the lone teams to average over three stars per player overall for both recruiting services over this time period (Maryland did average 3.01 stars per player via Rivals). In terms of Class size, Clemson's 22 players per class is about, on average, 1/4 of a signee less than the average of the other squads. Florida State has clearly been bringing in some large classes along with fantastic talent over the past five years. I should also point out that Clemson does average 24.5 signees per year if you omit the odd NSD from 2009.
Overall, Clemson appears to be in the top two in the division in terms of acquiring talent over the past five recruiting cycles. Clemson trails only FSU in "quality of talent" (i.e., stars per player) and is at average in terms of class size. While Clemson may bring in good high school talent, it is up to the individuals and coaches to turn this talent into success.