In Reply to: BRO trashing our recruits as usual, meanwhile... posted by jcbruin on January 30, 2024 at 15:04:56
The primary way classes are ranked is to assign recruits points and total the number of points in each school's recruiting class. Chip has struggled in HS recruiting - and our FB NIL funds aren't sufficient to out-bid the top schools for elite recruits. Believe our 2024 class currently stands at only 11 or so recruits - ranks next to last in the B1G. Just about everybody has more recruits and therefore more points.
There are also rankings done by average points per recruit. That values quality of recruits as opposed to the basic rankings which give quality some weight but also get swayed heavily by schools bringing in very large classes. Both matter, of course.
BRO also reports that and notes that Chip's recruiting strategy is to split each class between HS recruits and transfers. And they also communicate rankings that include both HS recruits and transfers combined.
Their philosophy is a class ought to have both but that rankings do matter and a class - like ours right now - that is essentially 3 stars maybe one 4 star and perhaps a couple 2 stars. (long snappers may not be rated at all so I guess that counts as a player but zero points but nonetheless it's a necessity no matter what school we're talking about.)
i think they're disappointed with our HS recruiting and with the HS players in this class to this point (aren't we all?) and also with Chip's record to date. They expected 9 or 10 wins last season given our softer than Charmin' schedule - they found 7 wins disappointing.
They expected more from Moore (freshmen often aren't ready) - that was disappointing but not a slam at Chip or the program. They expected more out of ou WRs based on spring practice and their past history and they were disappointed that only Loya was heavily used.
They were pleasantly surprised and quite enthusiastic about our defense and raved about Latu et al. They were positive about the win over SC but did attribute a lot of the reasons for it to SC "not showing up." (They had a similar reaction to last week's basketball win over SC and i didn't see SC not trying - i saw a team that has height but doesn't rebound well and was just getting one of its two key offensive players back and they got out-worked and out-fought on the boards and to me that's credit to us not so much dismiss the effort by them and after a hot start Boogie got completely taken out of the game and yes, rust and conditioning no doubt a factor but again credit to Andrews, McClendon and Mack for taking SC's star threat out of the game. But you know it's okay to disagree with interpretations without it being some sort of attack against us.)
But they were badly disappointed by the way we played against ASU and against Cal. (i agree about Cal and thought ASU just out-coached us in that one - it happens.) ut they were positive about our bowl game.
It's not one thing. i think all who read them have some disagreements but for the most part i think Woods does an excellent job and Pierson has become mucjh more transparent about his feelings and reasons for his opinions over the years.
i would disagree about them "trashing our recruits as usual" - think they are negative about where we come out in the rankings that have to do with recruiting.
Development is key HOWEVER if you want regular strength on the lines - which imo is where everything starts on both O and D, you have to recruit size and talent and develop it both - they past few years we've hoped to bring in key transfers not on top of existing talent but because the needed level of talent just wasn't there. That's completely a hit or miss proposition. Two years ago we did okay on the offensive line. Last season we struggled for most of the year - thank goodness we didn't have major injuries there. Last season it all really paid off on defense with recruits in their second seasons on the team mostly; next year doesn't look nearly so good. And the competition is going to be tougher.
imo it's best to argue each point at a time rather than to condemn BRO reporting as simply always trashing our recruiting per se