Flo recruiting class rankings 2012-2017

[matter7172]

I believe it's premium content, but an interesting angle appeared when I started looking at the six-year summary of recruiting class rankings. If you don't weight the rankings and just add up the positions over the six years, PSU is even with Iowa in its overall ranking with the two OSUs sitting on top and Nebraska not far behind.

Iowa - 48 total ranking points or average of 8
PSU - 48 trp or average of 8
tOSU - 38 trp or average of 6.33
OSU - 35 trp or average of 5.83
Neb - 52 trp or average of 8.67

I didn't bother with teams that had unranked classes, but it was of at least mild interest to me. One note, Purdue is kind of sneaking up with the last two classes, which were ranked 6 and 13.

Footnote - I just went from the top of the list down on Flo's 2017 ranking when listing the teams.

 

[PSUer1989]

I believe it's premium content, but an interesting angle appeared when I started looking at the six-year summary of recruiting class rankings. If you don't weight the rankings and just add up the positions over the six years, PSU is even with Iowa in its overall ranking with the two OSUs sitting on top and Nebraska not far behind.

Iowa - 48 total ranking points or average of 8
PSU - 48 trp or average of 8
tOSU - 38 trp or average of 6.33
OSU - 35 trp or average of 5.83
Neb - 52 trp or average of 8.67

I didn't bother with teams that had unranked classes, but it was of at least mild interest to me. One note, Purdue is kind of sneaking up with the last two classes, which were ranked 6 and 13.

Footnote - I just went from the top of the list down on Flo's 2017 ranking when listing the teams.

How can that be? I thought we got the cream of the crop and that is why other teams have no chance against us! ;-)

 

[Pennstate1985]

Imo, Flo weights quantity of recruits too highly. They'd be better off making a weighting scale based on ranking. Also, get rid of the subjective component of trying to discern where a recruit may fit into a lineup. The Manville decision last year was faulty logic.

 

[tomsc]

One interesting stat is ASU's previous 5 year recruiting rankings--NR-#1-NR-NR-NR. Kind of all or nothing. (This year was #12).

 

[CholleyVandine]

Imo, Flo weights quantity of recruits too highly. They'd be better off making a weighting scale based on ranking. Also, get rid of the subjective component of trying to discern where a recruit may fit into a lineup. The Manville decision last year was faulty logic.

And not just Flo. Nearly everybody who attempts to do team rankings does the same thing.

The pattern repeats every year ... in spring, it's "the other teams have out-recruited Penn State," in winter, it's "of course Penn State is winning, just look at their recruits."

Seems like if a team wins six of seven and only has one top-ranked class in that period, you might want to take a hard look at your ranking criteria.

 

[impalanut]

Or Admit that Cael and company can coach

 

[NittanyLion84]

Or Admit that Cael and company can coach

Well, that's certainly not happening.

 

[Ian]

Yep, as indicated, no matter whose Rankings you believe, the overall talent haul since 2009 is pretty even between the big four.

PSU has begun to separate because they are getting more high end quality that is delivering! That's coaching, baby. The others seem to be captivated by volume. And that has been the separation.

Since 2007, only two classes (2010 & 2012) have failed to deliver a Champ.

 

[NittanyLion84]

I don't go to the other boards, but too facilitate their argument, I'm surprised they are not complaining that PSU's recruiting class rankings are way undervalued, because you can bet in 2 or 3 years they will complain that of course they won, they always get the best recruits.

 

[smalls103]

And not just Flo. Nearly everybody who attempts to do team rankings does the same thing.

Seems like if a team wins six of seven and only has one top-ranked class in that period, you might want to take a hard look at your ranking criteria.

it's pretty easy to ascertain - point out a PSU class that was unjustly ranked at the time.

you're working backwards and saying: "if psu wins every year, their recruiting classes must have been under ranked."

that's not very logical.

 

[Ian]

There is not much difference between the Big Four.

2009 - 2012 (graduated classes)
HS Top Ranked Wrestlers
Top 25, Top 10, Top 5, #1's
Oklahoma St 8, 3, 1, 0
Penn State 8, 7, 5, 2
Iowa 7, 2, 1, 0
Ohio State 5, 4, 1, 1

2012-16 (current squads)
HS Top Ranked Wrestlers
Top 25, Top 10, Top 5, #1
Oklahoma St 10, 4, 2, 0
Penn State 9, 9, 7, 1
Ohio State 9, 8, 4, 2
Iowa 9, 2, 2, 0

Penn State: 2016 #2, 2015 #21, 2014 #1, 2013 #7, 2012 #17
Oklahoma State: 2016 #16, 2015 #2, 2014 #2, 2013 #11, 2012 #6
Ohio State: 2016 #10, 2015 #6, 2014 #5, 2013 #10, 2012 #12
Iowa: 2016 #3, 2015 #10, 2014 #9, 2013 #6, 2012 #2

 

[SRATH]

Sorry, but that is a huge difference. If I am reading your recent rankings correctly, we have 7 top five wrestlers. The other three listed only have 8.

The older data shows an even greater disparity between the four schools listed when focusing on top 5 guys.

To me, the data also suggests a consolidation of the top talent at these four schools when comparing the periods you have provided.

When you have Verklereen walking away from a full ride at ISU ( I am guessing ) to walk on at PSU ( again, guessing ), imho we have reached a place where I completely understand the rest of the country is in wtf mode. I don't care, but I get it.

 

[tomsc]

Using Ian's data, there are some surprising overall team recruiting rankings for the past 5 years. In terms of average team recruiting ranking (2012-2016):
Iowa--6th
OSU--7th
tOSU--9th
PSU--10th

But, the teams with the highest number of top 25,10, 5, 1 ranked guys are in exactly reverse order:
PSU--9,9,7,1
tOSU--9,8,4,2
OSU--10,4,2,0
Iowa--9,2,2,0
It would appear that having larger recruiting classes, even if of lesser quality, must weigh in significantly. Or else, statistical aberration?

 

[Cali_Nittany]

I believe it's premium content, but an interesting angle appeared when I started looking at the six-year summary of recruiting class rankings. If you don't weight the rankings and just add up the positions over the six years, PSU is even with Iowa in its overall ranking with the two OSUs sitting on top and Nebraska not far behind.

Iowa - 48 total ranking points or average of 8
PSU - 48 trp or average of 8
tOSU - 38 trp or average of 6.33
OSU - 35 trp or average of 5.83
Neb - 52 trp or average of 8.67

I didn't bother with teams that had unranked classes, but it was of at least mild interest to me. One note, Purdue is kind of sneaking up with the last two classes, which were ranked 6 and 13.

Footnote - I just went from the top of the list down on Flo's 2017 ranking when listing the teams.

This is very interesting (I wouldn't have predicted those #s). Thanks for posting.

To add to the statistical variance though, not all #1 classes are created equal. 2014 was an epic haul. Incredibly, it will be surpassed by 2018.

 

[dicemen99]

Using Ian's data, there are some surprising overall team recruiting rankings for the past 5 years. In terms of average team recruiting ranking (2012-2016):
Iowa--6th
OSU--7th
tOSU--9th
PSU--10th

But, the teams with the highest number of top 25,10, 5, 1 ranked guys are in exactly reverse order:
PSU--9,9,7,1
tOSU--9,8,4,2
OSU--10,4,2,0
Iowa--9,2,2,0
It would appear that having larger recruiting classes, even if of lesser quality, must weigh in significantly. Or else, statistical aberration?

I think Willie readily admits that they do. He also weighs things like immediate need met and amount of starter years expected.

Although I'm a big fan of Willie's knowledge and analysis, personally I think it's a lot of gyrations that are unnecessary. The bottom line is when it comes to winning or placing high at nationals in the current format, the only thing that really matters is AAs and, more importantly, high AAs and NCs. Which comes down to accumulation and development of top end talent. Sure, there are high AAs and NCs that don't come from highly ranked recruits, but identifying them is somewhat of a crapshoot; otherwise, they would be highly ranked. And, IMO, they are probably more likely to emerge in a room full of talent where the path to a starting position is more difficult to project.

To take this point to it's extreme, if you had a squad that fielded 10 high AAs or NCs with 3 years of eligibility a piece and they brought in the majority of the top 10 recruits in their recruiting class, you would have to heavily discount the recruiting class because of the assumption that none would see the lineup until their rsJR years. I know this takes it to the extreme, but shows you that the better your roster is currently, the higher bar you are compared against for recruiting rankings.

I know this is an oversimplification of the process, but it also illustrates the path you start to go down when you try to project where kids fit in to a squad. Things change rapidly in regards to weight, injuries, etc.

 

[RoarLions1]

Fine with what Willie & crew does. And he takes time to explain things. Doubt many could do better, given it' before a kid takes his first step onto a mat in a college singlet, not to mention the tons of non-wrestling variables that can influence success.

 

[mcruny42]

Looking back at those rankings, I do not have much of an issue with Flo's rankings, but last years was a definite miss. Anyone who thinks a class is better than one that had Mark Hall and Suriano in it is flawed and I think most fans agreed that PSUs class was number 1 last year. Its only a year in but I doubt NC State's guys have the impact of Hall and Suriano, regardless of what Manville produces.

 

[Pennstate1985]

Using Ian's data, there are some surprising overall team recruiting rankings for the past 5 years. In terms of average team recruiting ranking (2012-2016):
Iowa--6th
OSU--7th
tOSU--9th
PSU--10th

But, the teams with the highest number of top 25,10, 5, 1 ranked guys are in exactly reverse order:
PSU--9,9,7,1
tOSU--9,8,4,2
OSU--10,4,2,0
Iowa--9,2,2,0
It would appear that having larger recruiting classes, even if of lesser quality, must weigh in significantly. Or else, statistical aberration?

Quantity over quality is what got Iowa in trouble these last 5-7 years, and threatens OSU going forward. The fact that Cael, and then Tom Ryan, started recruiting in a top heavy manner have led to the results we see at nationals each year. My sense is that Willie and Flo are where Iowa was and OSU is, rather than with what is actually working in today's collegiate wrestling landscape.

 

[PSUAllTheWay]

These days Cael seems to be going for quality AND quantity ;-)

Let the good times roll ...

 

[Brian LB-U]

I think

I think Willie readily admits that they do. He also weighs things like immediate need met and amount of starter years expected.

Although I'm a big fan of Willie's knowledge and analysis, personally I think it's a lot of gyrations that are unnecessary. The bottom line is when it comes to winning or placing high at nationals in the current format, the only thing that really matters is AAs and, more importantly, high AAs and NCs. Which comes down to accumulation and development of top end talent. Sure, there are high AAs and NCs that don't come from highly ranked recruits, but identifying them is somewhat of a crapshoot; otherwise, they would be highly ranked. And, IMO, they are probably more likely to emerge in a room full of talent where the path to a starting position is more difficult to project.

To take this point to it's extreme, if you had a squad that fielded 10 high AAs or NCs with 3 years of eligibility a piece and they brought in the majority of the top 10 recruits in their recruiting class, you would have to heavily discount the recruiting class because of the assumption that none would see the lineup until their rsJR years. I know this takes it to the extreme, but shows you that the better your roster is currently, the higher bar you are compared against for recruiting rankings.

I know this is an oversimplification of the process, but it also illustrates the path you start to go down when you try to project where kids fit in to a squad. Things change rapidly in regards to weight, injuries, etc.

Bingo! If Pitt landed Suriano, Hall and Manville last year, their class would have been ranked "#1". Cael does it and he's "penalized" (on paper) because the kids he previously recruited are dominating the sport. Willie's standards are very different than the guys who cover NCAA football recruiting. And that's ok. Wrestling recruiting is all about filling needs on a "limited budget" (insert slush fund joke here). Wrestling coaches have it pretty tough because they need to project things 3 or 4 years out, and there are so many unknowns. This and the fact the wrestling equivalent of "5-star" talent is largely going to only five or six teams.

Football is more about numbers and consistency over time. Talent remains super-important but it's there to be had every single year. Does anybody recall the football recruiting pundits ever penalizing USC under Pete Carroll for adding yet another 5-star QB or RB to his roster when he already had three or four others waiting in the wings? The answer is "no" because it never happened. And even if he was penalized, what would it matter? Carroll just kept plugging in the "next blue chipper up" and winning big where it actually mattered - on the field of play (much to my chagrin). Thankfully, Cael is doing the same thing with his wrestling program in spite of the annual team recruiting rankings.

 

[El-Jefe]

Bingo! If Pitt landed Suriano, Hall and Manville

This is as far as I could get. Laughing too hard to continue.

 

[Brian LB-U]

This is as far as I could get. Laughing too hard to continue.

Yea, I hear ya. You've got quite the mountain to climb when SDSU > sPitt.

 

[smalls103]

very good discussion with really interesting points.

i think this is a gross oversimplification "My sense is that Willie and Flo are where Iowa was and OSU is, rather than with what is actually working in today's collegiate wrestling landscape."

but there's value to be had in discussing that.

perhaps i'll write an article about this and the changing wrestling/recruiting landscape and how it pertains to class rankings and (the gist of the argument) the elevated expectations of prospects these days.

- With a tip of the cap to bwi and this thread

 

[Pennstate1985]

very good discussion with really interesting points.

i think this is a gross oversimplification "My sense is that Willie and Flo are where Iowa was and OSU is, rather than with what is actually working in today's collegiate wrestling landscape."

but there's value to be had in discussing that.

perhaps i'll write an article about this and the changing wrestling/recruiting landscape and how it pertains to class rankings and (the gist of the argument) the elevated expectations of prospects these days.

- With a tip of the cap to bwi and this thread

I'll be the first to admit that the quote was an over simplification

 

[CentexLion]

very good discussion with really interesting points.

i think this is a gross oversimplification "My sense is that Willie and Flo are where Iowa was and OSU is, rather than with what is actually working in today's collegiate wrestling landscape."

but there's value to be had in discussing that.

perhaps i'll write an article about this and the changing wrestling/recruiting landscape and how it pertains to class rankings and (the gist of the argument) the elevated expectations of prospects these days.

- With a tip of the cap to bwi and this thread

Thanks Willie. Always enjoy listening you your podcasts each week when I'm out for a run. Weather starting to get real hot here in Austin, so will be listening in the gym. Good banter between you, CP and the crew make it worth listening to. You need to have an Austin Happy hour some time.

With regards to rankings, wrestling is quite different than football or basketball. I think it is easier to look at the "best" class, and think it is straight forward to use Points scored at Nationals in their career. If you use AA, there is a huge difference between #1 and #8 (last year PSU versus OSU at Nationals in points). It also takes out the subjective "man years wrestled". If that is the metric, Fresno State probably will have the largest number for this years recruiting class.

Being a Koncrete Kid and PSU grad, of course I believe PSU had the best recruiting class last year (over NCState) and they probably are a solid #3 this year with lots of upside. We'll see.

Again, thank you Willie and Flo.

 

[RoarLions1]

2012-16 (current squads)
HS Top Ranked Wrestlers
Top 25, Top 10, Top 5, #1
Oklahoma St 10, 4, 2, 0
Penn State 9, 9, 7, 1
Ohio State 9, 8, 4, 2
Iowa 9, 2, 2, 0

Penn State: 2016 #2, 2015 #21, 2014 #1, 2013 #7, 2012 #17
Oklahoma State: 2016 #16, 2015 #2, 2014 #2, 2013 #11, 2012 #6
Ohio State: 2016 #10, 2015 #6, 2014 #5, 2013 #10, 2012 #12
Iowa: 2016 #3, 2015 #10, 2014 #9, 2013 #6, 2012 #2

Sorry, but that is a huge difference. If I am reading your recent rankings correctly, we have 7 top five wrestlers. The other three listed only have 8.

The older data shows an even greater disparity between the four schools listed when focusing on top 5 guys.

To me, the data also suggests a consolidation of the top talent at these four schools when comparing the periods you have provided.

When you have Verklereen walking away from a full ride at ISU ( I am guessing ) to walk on at PSU ( again, guessing ), imho we have reached a place where I completely understand the rest of the country is in wtf mode. I don't care, but I get it.

Thanks for the data IAN. I'm with SRATH on this one.

Using just 2012-2016;
PSU successfully recruited 7 top-5 guys (Gulibon, Retherford, Nolf, Nevills, Joseph, Hall, and Suriano)
tOSU successfully recruited 4 (Bo Jordan, Snyder, Martin, and White)
OSU successfully recruited 2 (J. Rogers, Marsteller)
Iowa successfully recruited 1 (Marinelli)
Michigan successfully recruited 4 (T. Massa, Coon, Whitford, L. Massa)
Iowa State successfully recruited 1 (Meeks)
Illinois successfully recruited 1 (Martinez)
Cornell, Lehigh and Minnesota had no top-5 recruits during this period.

Point is, this metric, or using top-10 as a measuring stick, means far more, imo, than an average ranking. Too much variability in average ranking, so longer term it's better to go one level below the surface.

Also, while it's after-the-fact, notice the number of wrestlers that, whatever-the-reason, don't get on the mat much for a D1 school. For just the top-5's above, we have White (tOSU), Marsteller (OSU), T. Massa and Whitford (Michigan), and Meeks (ISU).

Earl Smith does a pretty cool job with a "Recruiting Rewind", but it's focused on individual wrestlers. It's also after the guys have completed their careers. Would there be value in a sort of TEAM Rewind, done in rolling 4-year or 5-year cycles? For example, using top-5 as a metric, given the current status of recruits for 2012-16, PSU is well ahead;
Using just 2012-2016;
PSU has retained 7 top-5 guys (Gulibon, Retherford, Nolf, Nevills, Joseph, Hall, and Suriano)
tOSU has retained 3 (Bo Jordan, Snyder, Martin)
OSU has retained 2 (J. Rogers)
Iowa has retained 1 (Marinelli)
Michigan has retained 2 (Coon, L. Massa)
Iowa State has retained 0
Illinois has retained 1 (Martinez)

Easier to explain our recent success...again, imo.

 

[matter7172]

I think it's become abundantly clear that PSU under Cael and his staff are a cut above everyone else on two (maybe three) pivotal fronts - 1) recruiting top level/elite wrestlers (and the right top wrestlers for the program) and 2) developing the wrestlers to maximize their potentials. If someone ignores these facts, they are clearly in denial. Yes, there are exceptions, but as is the case in many situations, the exceptions prove the rule. It's a pretty lethal combination, btw. I would allow that tOSU is closest to PSU on both fronts.

 

[RoarLions1]

I think it's become abundantly clear that PSU under Cael and his staff are a cut above everyone else on two (maybe three) pivotal fronts - 1) recruiting top level/elite wrestlers (and the right top wrestlers for the program) and 2) developing the wrestlers to maximize their potentials. If someone ignores these facts, they are clearly in denial. Yes, there are exceptions, but as is the case in many situations, the exceptions prove the rule. It's a pretty lethal combination, btw. I would allow that tOSU is closest to PSU on both fronts.

I would add retention as a third, matter. Maybe some luck, good-fortune, or whatever, might even be part of the "fits-the-program" part of recruiting.

 

[KidNittany]

I would add retention as a third, matter. Maybe some luck, good-fortune, or whatever, might even be part of the "fits-the-program" part of recruiting.

Can you explain what you mean with retention? I'm just thinking of a bunch of guys popping in my head as counter-examples of what I think you mean

edit - nvm I didn't read your other comments earlier. I think I agree

 

[tikk10]

Can you explain what you mean with retention? I'm just thinking of a bunch of guys popping in my head as counter-examples of what I think you mean

I think he means that the guys PSU doesn't "retain" tend to leave for lineup congestion reasons, not because they couldn't hack the the workload (including classes). It's a meaningful distinction because the former is just a mathematical reality known to the recruit in advance, but the latter can be screened out in the recruiting process by the coaches.

 

[RoarLions1]

Can you explain what you mean with retention? I'm just thinking of a bunch of guys popping in my head as counter-examples of what I think you mean

edit - nvm I didn't read your other comments earlier. I think I agree

I think he means that the guys PSU doesn't "retain" tend to leave for lineup congestion reasons, not because they couldn't hack the the workload (including classes). It's a meaningful distinction because the former is just a mathematical reality known to the recruit in advance, but the latter can be screened out in the recruiting process by the coaches.

Maybe not the best word, guys. The NCAA's APR is a measure of "retention", more along the lines of 1) stays eligible, and 2) doesn't leave the program early.

My "retention" is not that at all, and is more of a 1) stays healthy, 2) goes to the school mentioned in the recruiting rankings, 3) others. Taylor Massa, for example and unfortunately, had injury issues, Isaiah White never made it to tOSU, and on and on. Again, maybe there's a better word.

If you look at PSU's 7 guys noted above (top-5 recruits from 2012-16), all were starters in 2016-17.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Maybe not the best word, guys. The NCAA's APR is a measure of "retention", more along the lines of 1) stays eligible, and 2) doesn't leave the program early.

My "retention" is not that at all, and is more of a 1) stays healthy, 2) goes to the school mentioned in the recruiting rankings, 3) others. Taylor Massa, for example and unfortunately, had injury issues, Isaiah White never made it to tOSU, and on and on. Again, maybe there's a better word.

If you look at PSU's 7 guys noted above (top-5 recruits from 2012-16), all were starters in 2016-17.

retention could also be those that committed and stayed. Chance committed and then changed his mind. So, that would be interesting - those changing their mind and coming as well as going.

 

[nitlion6]

retention could also be those that committed and stayed. Chance committed and then changed his mind. So, that would be interesting - those changing their mind and coming as well as going.

Not being picky, not sure I would call Chance a self mind changer.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Not being picky, not sure I would call Chance a self mind changer.

yep,nevertheless, he committed, we jumped for joy, and he changed his mind.

 

[nitlion6]

yep,nevertheless, he committed, we jumped for joy, and he changed his mind.

A tad more blunt. He was informed he needed to look else where and was allowed to paint it anyway he desired. "Changed mind"

 

[Brian LB-U]

Not being picky, not sure I would call Chance a self mind changer.

Would you accept "self mind-altering" given what's come out since?

 

[RoarLions1]

Not worth rehashing the Chance thing. My point, for all the guys noted that didn't hang with the program they were recruited in, is that it is a factor when comparing historical recruiting data. Losing a top recruit, whatever the reason, should be a component for recruiting success.