Illinois Football Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
From another board......a look at what other Big Ten programs did this class. Say what you want about Kirk Ferentz, but he definitely punches above his weight when you look at how he recruits. Not many blue chippers in Iowa City, but boy, I'd love to swap places with them as a program.

2019 #CFB Recruiting​
Top 500 Recruits for each Big Ten Team (247 Composite)​
Penn State - 19​
Michigan - 18​
Nebraska - 13​
Ohio State - 12​
Wisconsin - 7​
Purdue - 6​
Michigan State - 5​
Indiana - 4​
Iowa - 4​
Illinois - 3​
Minnesota - 3​
Maryland - 3​
Northwestern - 1​
Rutgers - 0​
— NCAAF Nation (@NCAAFNation247) February 11, 2019
 
Likes: Clemillini21
Tough to look at that list and not see the potential for more 63 point losses in our future...ugh.
 
Tough to look at that list and not see the potential for more 63 point losses in our future...ugh.
Have to put it into context. When the final rankings come out, our number will be 4 and we will have a higher percentage of Top 500 than all but Penn St, OSU, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin.

We had a very small class
 
Likes: Dude
Have to put it into context. When the final rankings come out, our number will be 4 and we will have a higher percentage of Top 500 than all but Penn St, OSU, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin.

We had a very small class
The context is you are looking at a small sample size. If we needed a bigger class, it would have been filled with low 3 stars at best. I’m happy we landed some better guys and I hope we can build on it.
 
The context is you are looking at a small sample size. If we needed a bigger class, it would have been filled with low 3 stars at best. I’m happy we landed some better guys and I hope we can build on it.
There is no way to know that. We knew spots were limited and we landed most of the guys we had targeted for a very long time. Our success rate in holding off late pushes for several of our priority recruits indicates a pretty good success rate at who we target.
 
Likes: KevinC
There is no way to know that. We knew spots were limited and we landed most of the guys we had targeted for a very long time. Our success rate in holding off late pushes for several of our priority recruits indicates a pretty good success rate at who we target.
That's right. The staff purposely holds the number of top 500 players to about 30% of the class, lest they appear too greedy. Coach Franklin's mother must be soooo embarrassed.
 

Deleted member 16068

D
Guest
That's right. The staff purposely holds the number of top 500 players to about 30% of the class, lest they appear too greedy. Coach Franklin's mother must be soooo embarrassed.
Really with this response?
We are IL, not Alabama. Yes I think that staff looked at the number of open spots, then delegated the number of hours they could spend on each recruit. Since we are IL, they are going to need to work that much harder to land those top 500. So yes it makes perfect.
You take his comment as if IL has the ability to land 10 top recruits if they just put the work in.
 
South Carolina
Really with this response?
We are IL, not Alabama. Yes I think that staff looked at the number of open spots, then delegated the number of hours they could spend on each recruit. Since we are IL, they are going to need to work that much harder to land those top 500. So yes it makes perfect.
You take his comment as if IL has the ability to land 10 top recruits if they just put the work in.
So what happens next time we need a class of 20? Does the number of top-500 guys go up proportionally or does it stay the same since we are limited by recruiting resources?
 
Really with this response?
We are IL, not Alabama. Yes I think that staff looked at the number of open spots, then delegated the number of hours they could spend on each recruit. Since we are IL, they are going to need to work that much harder to land those top 500. So yes it makes perfect.
You take his comment as if IL has the ability to land 10 top recruits if they just put the work in.
No, I took MadSeason's comment to mean that the Illini could have gotten more 4 stars if they had more roster spots available, which is basically what he stated. You apparently agree with him, so maybe you can explain if they could have gotten more 4 stars with more spots to fill (and having less hours per recruit), why didn't they get more 4 stars with the nine 3 star (plus two additional unfilled) spots?
 
Allen Trieu (@AllenTrieu)
2/11/19, 2:47 PM
#Wisconsin and #Minnesota both offered LaGrange (Ill.) Nazareth Academy's standout freshman WR Tyler Morris when he came to campus. Much of rest of the Big Ten also interested. 247sports.com/Article/Freshm… pic.twitter.com/BZgoPu0I5Y

I hope we get in on this kid. He's from Plainfield and an absolutely stud of an athlete. Awesome kid on top of that.
I go to school at Nazareth. He was already our third best reciever on the best team in state. Sadly though for our quarterback JJ McCarthy it seems apparent he has set his sights on Notre Dame.
 
So what happens next time we need a class of 20? Does the number of top-500 guys go up proportionally or does it stay the same since we are limited by recruiting resources?
Who knows and who cares?

It depends on the number of top recruits are in the area, and who is running point on the recruitment, and .... We targeted some big names in positions of need that happened to be local. We landed them this year. Other years we have not, think Merlin Robertson, for example, comes to mind. There are so many confounding factors.

We also targeted recruits at positions of need. We didn't send out nets as wide this year on every recruit because we were targeting areas of need.

Also, what is the significance of top 500 recruits. Why not top 200? Why not top 750?

If you look at top 300, we had 3. Iowa had 1. Maryland had 2, Indiana had 1, Michigan State had 2.
 
From another board......a look at what other Big Ten programs did this class. Say what you want about Kirk Ferentz, but he definitely punches above his weight when you look at how he recruits. Not many blue chippers in Iowa City, but boy, I'd love to swap places with them as a program.

2019 #CFB Recruiting​
Top 500 Recruits for each Big Ten Team (247 Composite)​
Penn State - 19​
Michigan - 18​
Nebraska - 13​
Ohio State - 12​
Wisconsin - 7​
Purdue - 6​
Michigan State - 5​
Indiana - 4​
Iowa - 4​
Illinois - 3​
Minnesota - 3​
Maryland - 3​
Northwestern - 1​
Rutgers - 0​
— NCAAF Nation (@NCAAFNation247) February 11, 2019
Pretty sure that # is wrong for us. Coleman was reclassified into a 4*, plus Cooper, Beason and Williams. That # show;d read 4, tied with the two other I schools. Note: that doesn't include our 5* TE transfer who still has 3 years left.
 
Likes: KevinC
No, I took MadSeason's comment to mean that the Illini could have gotten more 4 stars if they had more roster spots available, which is basically what he stated. You apparently agree with him, so maybe you can explain if they could have gotten more 4 stars with more spots to fill (and having less hours per recruit), why didn't they get more 4 stars with the nine 3 star (plus two additional unfilled) spots?
I appreciate the original post. I am not sure that anyone is making the case that we could have had more 4*. But top 500 doesn't include just 4*, if you want a list of 4*, it would be roughly the top 300 ranked players. We are probably middle of the big with top 300 players (we are even better if you count Coleman).

But where we are in recruiting is different this year than it has been up to this point. Our first two years we needed Big Ten caliber bodies, we did go for players that were good, but we also looked for players that fit our system, and we needed large quantities of players. This year, we need to plug some of the holes on our team. We got some difference makers that can compete immediately in the secondary and we pulled in some depth. But mostly, we have players that can help us meet the needs on the defense and offense. Bringing in Beason will help fill a gap in the secondary and we have a handful of playmakers that can help us spread the ball.

Regardless of what everyone thinks about our recruiting, some love it and some hate it, whether recruiting is sufficient will only be seen on gameday.
 
Likes: KevinC
Carbondale, IL
Pretty sure that # is wrong for us. Coleman was reclassified into a 4*, plus Cooper, Beason and Williams. That # show;d read 4, tied with the two other I schools. Note: that doesn't include our 5* TE transfer who still has 3 years left.
Coleman has only been reevaluated by 247, so his composite ranking in still in the 700s IIRC. Sure that will change at some point.
 
Likes: Chukwuwumba
Cincinnati, OH
Have to put it into context. When the final rankings come out, our number will be 4 and we will have a higher percentage of Top 500 than all but Penn St, OSU, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin.

We had a very small class

This would be fair if Illinois was bringing in 4-star recruits the past few years in their bigger classes, but they didn't. Expand this list to include all of the players on each team's roster and number of top-500 and this starts to look worse and worse.
 
I appreciate the original post. I am not sure that anyone is making the case that we could have had more 4*. But top 500 doesn't include just 4*, if you want a list of 4*, it would be roughly the top 300 ranked players. We are probably middle of the big with top 300 players (we are even better if you count Coleman).

But where we are in recruiting is different this year than it has been up to this point. Our first two years we needed Big Ten caliber bodies, we did go for players that were good, but we also looked for players that fit our system, and we needed large quantities of players. This year, we need to plug some of the holes on our team. We got some difference makers that can compete immediately in the secondary and we pulled in some depth. But mostly, we have players that can help us meet the needs on the defense and offense. Bringing in Beason will help fill a gap in the secondary and we have a handful of playmakers that can help us spread the ball.

Regardless of what everyone thinks about our recruiting, some love it and some hate it, whether recruiting is sufficient will only be seen on gameday.
I was being lazy typing 4 star instead of top 500. But the point remains.

I'm not seeing the hatred for the recruiting class you see. I have the feeling if someone doesn't think the class is as rosy as you think it is, you believe they hate it.
 
Cincinnati, OH
This isn't an exact measurement, for a number of reasons, but thought it was worthwhile to expand upon the list mentioned earlier.


Here is your number of top-300 recruits at B1G West schools (past four classes - to help Illinois out, I only did 247 rankings to grab Coleman):
Northwestern: 2
Wisconsin: 6
Purdue: 5
Iowa: 2
Nebraska: 14
Minnesota: 3
Illinois: 5

Here is your number of top-500 players at B1G West schools (past four classes):
Northwestern: 6
Wisconsin: 23
Purdue: 7
Iowa: 14
Nebraska: 31
Minnesota: 11
Illinois: 12
 
Cincinnati, OH
My takeaways:

  1. Wisconsin and Nebraska bring in a lot of talent. Wisconsin does great things with their talent. Nebraska....does not
  2. Almost all of Purdue's numbers are from this incoming class. That's not good news for us.
  3. Minnesota is not doing as well recruiting as I was lead to believe. Guessing this is primarily because of the strong recruiting location crossover with Illinois.
  4. Iowa and Northwestern's staff are doing incredible work without top-shelf talent (Caveat is both programs bring in a TON of 500-1000 ranked recruits)
  5. Illinois' numbers show that top-level talent is strong, but the tapering off is apparent in the top 500 list. It gets worse as you look deeper into 500-1000 list.
  6. Brohm must leave
  7. Seriously, how does Nebraska have so much and do so little?
 
So what happens next time we need a class of 20? Does the number of top-500 guys go up proportionally or does it stay the same since we are limited by recruiting resources?
I would say that all depends on the actual targets that are viable options, wouldn't you?
 
Likes: KevinC
This isn't an exact measurement, for a number of reasons, but thought it was worthwhile to expand upon the list mentioned earlier.


Here is your number of top-300 recruits at B1G West schools (past four classes - to help Illinois out, I only did 247 rankings to grab Coleman):
Northwestern: 2
Wisconsin: 6
Purdue: 5
Iowa: 2
Nebraska: 14
Minnesota: 3
Illinois: 5

Here is your number of top-500 players at B1G West schools (past four classes):
Northwestern: 6
Wisconsin: 23
Purdue: 7
Iowa: 14
Nebraska: 31
Minnesota: 11
Illinois: 12
Thank you for this. But after reading your next post, would it be too much to ask for a breakdown of top 1000 players?
 
No, I took MadSeason's comment to mean that the Illini could have gotten more 4 stars if they had more roster spots available, which is basically what he stated. You apparently agree with him, so maybe you can explain if they could have gotten more 4 stars with more spots to fill (and having less hours per recruit), why didn't they get more 4 stars with the nine 3 star (plus two additional unfilled) spots?
No
The first comment was that if we had more open spots, we would have filled them with low 3 star recruits. Which is nothing but an assumption.
MadSeason stated that. Then he mentioned that the spots were limited. And that we landed the majority of the recruits we targeted.
You then replied with a snarky comment along the lines of purposely are not landing top 500 recruits so we are not greedy.
I responded saying I believe MadSeason was correct. The staff looked at the options, delegated the hours based off their probability, and then were very successful within that plan.
To flat out say MadSeason was implying we would have landed more top end talent if we had more spots is incorrect. If we had more spots, we could have gone after more talent. Who we would have landed is unknown. To say if we had more spots, we would have just filled them with Bryce Childress or Fabian McCray is wrong.
2020 - I don't know where they rank, but viable options so far look like Denver Warren, Beason's cousin, the East St. Louis trio, Mookie Cooper. I would say if the staff feels they can land these guys, they are going to go all out and see how many hours they have left to fill the class. Makes sense to me
 
Also, what is the significance of top 500 recruits. Why not top 200? Why not top 750?

If you look at top 300, we had 3. Iowa had 1. Maryland had 2, Indiana had 1, Michigan State had 2.
That is because stats don't lie, people do.
Last year, I lead this team in 9th inning doubles during the month of June!
Anyone know that movie reference?
 
My takeaways:

  1. Wisconsin and Nebraska bring in a lot of talent. Wisconsin does great things with their talent. Nebraska....does not
  2. Almost all of Purdue's numbers are from this incoming class. That's not good news for us.
  3. Minnesota is not doing as well recruiting as I was lead to believe. Guessing this is primarily because of the strong recruiting location crossover with Illinois.
  4. Iowa and Northwestern's staff are doing incredible work without top-shelf talent (Caveat is both programs bring in a TON of 500-1000 ranked recruits)
  5. Illinois' numbers show that top-level talent is strong, but the tapering off is apparent in the top 500 list. It gets worse as you look deeper into 500-1000 list.
  6. Brohm must leave
  7. Seriously, how does Nebraska have so much and do so little?
As to #7, I think Scott Frost will change that this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.