Illinois Football Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there are teams that will be better off during the pandemic. Money, technology already in place, and willingness to accept changes are the big factors.

Whether or not we are on that side or the other I dont know, but some teams will handle this better than others.
 
Cary, IL
My expectation was that recruiting would improve after showing some progress on the field (and I'm pretty confident this was the general consensus here). I don't see any signs of the materializing.

I looked back at the recruiting thread from last April, and that place was buzzing. People were getting excited about Mookie Cooper and AJ Henning. Right now it's crickets
Unfortunately, right now, the world is crickets.
 
My expectation was that recruiting would improve after showing some progress on the field (and I'm pretty confident this was the general consensus here). I don't see any signs of the materializing.

I looked back at the recruiting thread from last April, and that place was buzzing. People were getting excited about Mookie Cooper and AJ Henning. Right now it's crickets
I think this is a good point. But it is crickets because we just don't know what is happening. I have a twitter that only follows Illinois football and I can see that there is a lot of activity on twitter. I think this class gets filled with power 5 talent. I would never say that recruiting rankings don't matter because a 5* is way more likely to contribute at a high level than a 2*. Having said that, I think the way fans use recruiting rankings is way off base from what statistics and scouts are even capable of.

If we look at average statistics below for a OSU 91.8 vs. Michigan 90.35. What is the difference between those scores? 1.45, but does that 1.45 represent anything? Not really. Turning players into numbers is inexact and then comparing the numbers is not even possible. We can say that 91.8 is greater than 90.35, but in what way? We can't really say. All we can say with confidence is that Ohio State is more likely to have better recruits than Michigan and more players will get drafted (or something like that). We can't say that class is more impactful or more important. We can't say that in general the players are better in any way other than likelihood of getting drafted, and that number gets even more cloudy when you look at UM vs Penn State. The difference is negligible and likely unimportant and insignificant. Now, I wouldn't argue that 91.8 is insignificant in comparison to 84.9. The magnitude is great enough that it could be argued that the difference is substantial and almost certainly going to lead to a W if both teams play (from the standpoint of talent). But that is if those 25 players played against our 13 players. But thats not how football works. Our 13 fit into a team that has a comparable number of players. That number will contribute to a much different starting lineup. Those OSU players will replace other players with similarly high scores. But the Illinois players will be more likely to be used in a different capacity. But even then, it would be safe to say that OSU vs. Illinois would lead to a W for OSU 9+ out of 10 times, given all else equal.

Now, things get murkier when you compare Illinois to Minnesota. 84.9 vs 85.8. Is there a difference? I'm not sure. Whereas I can say, with near certainty that OSU has a much better talent base than Illinois because the level of variance is great, the difference between Illinois and Minnesota scores are too small to make any conclusions. This is exacerbated when you take into account transfers and creaning players (freshmen won't contribute like seniors). Further, fewer eyes are on a 2* than a 5*, which makes scouting reports less accurate. And less attention is paid to 3* players, so scouting becomes much more important (which is one thing that we do well). Also, on a team like Illinois or Minnesota, how the players fit into their role is much different than a team like OSU, where almost every player on the field is contending for the NFL. Similarly, finding good players in positions of great need (receivers) and using fillers for positions with great uncertainty (linemen) can make recruiting rankings for all mid or low tier schools difficult to interpret.

Ultimately, I'm not saying that we are crushing it in recruiting. We are not. What I am saying is that the talent we have on the roster and that is being recruited to the program is good enough to win games in the Big Ten, as seen last year. We don't have the talent to be a contender and we may never get there with this administration. But going from the worst football program in college football to a consistent bowl contender is a good first step. And we have the talent to accomplish that. Now will the team be put together that way is yet to be seen. I believe we are in position to qualify for bowls three out of 4 years (including the past bowl). If we don't then we find a new coach. One that will start with a solid team that can build them to be better.

This idea that Fleck would be doing well at Illinois is not known. He has done well at Minnesota, but they also have had a history of qualifying for bowl games this millennium (I think 15 since 2000), which is maybe roughly 3 times what we have done since 2000. I think we got the coach we needed to climb out of the hole. We just peeked out of the hole. If our head doesn't come up over the next few seasons, we will be starting over. But I still think that once we get our heads out, things begin to turn and I think we are right at the fulcrum point. Time will tell. But I think another few years of bowl success will start to see the local view of the Illini start to shift. But, who knows.

Ohio State

Ohio State
25 Commits

91.80
295.08

Michigan

Michigan
23 Commits

90.35
256.34
Penn State

Penn State
27 Commits

89.55
256.05

Nebraska

Nebraska
24 Commits

88.38
240.27

Wisconsin

Wisconsin
20 Commits

87.82
225.54


Maryland

Maryland
27 Commits

85.62
209.67

Purdue

Purdue
21 Commits

86.64
208.38

Iowa

Iowa
21 Commits

86.45
203.81

Minnesota

Minnesota
24 Commits

85.80
199.35

Michigan State

Michigan State
22 Commits

85.68
193.32

Northwestern

Northwestern
17 Commits

86.50
190.69

Indiana

Indiana
19 Commits

85.00
177.39

Rutgers

Rutgers
20 Commits

84.18
170.14

Illinois

Illinois
13 Commits

84.90
152.90
 
Off topic a bit, but remember Kraig Appleton who Zook chased a little bit before he went off to Wisc for one year.

Well, he just got arrested today for first degree murder. As Garth Brooks would say "Thank God for unanswered prayers".
Sad to hear. He had a promising athletic career and was kicked off the Wisky team and now this. Wasn't he in trouble a couple of other times before this? I do remember him getting shot at some point.
 
Not even having a player signed as a UDFA can't help with recruiting, especially since southern Illinois, Illinois State and Western Illinois has multiple people signed
 
Likes: RickBB
If we look at average statistics below for a OSU 91.8 vs. Michigan 90.35. What is the difference between those scores? 1.45, but does that 1.45 represent anything?
1.45 is bigger than the difference of being a top 500 recruit and a top 750 recruit.
Now, things get murkier when you compare Illinois to Minnesota. 84.9 vs 85.8. Is there a difference? I'm not sure.
Oh, I have some pretty little charts coming that I think will help you be a little more sure. Sure, we can question the scouting and ratings, but unless you are going to watch film on each player, it's the best we have to work with.
 
Likes: Illwinsagain
1.45 is bigger than the difference of being a top 500 recruit and a top 750 recruit.

Oh, I have some pretty little charts coming that I think will help you be a little more sure. Sure, we can question the scouting and ratings, but unless you are going to watch film on each player, it's the best we have to work with.
1.45 at that level is the difference between 275 and 335. And that is exactly my point. Being the 275th best player vs the 335th best player is being equated to 500 vs 750. What do those differences mean? Absolutely nothing. I did quite a bit of analysis with the nfl and drafting. and what the data shows is way different than what it means on a case by case basis. Or what it means beyond high and Low levels or large differentials.

Having data is better than not having data. I agree.
I like charts, so I’m happy you are producing them. I use them just like everyone else. There’s just too much inconsequential information in middle tier recruits (few eyeballs and greater variance in scores, amount of tape, etc.).

Also another question is how do you use the score. Is a .9 Difference much different? Difference score analysis, which is not even being used, is plagued with errors when used to compare numbers as people. Is a 6 point difference between a player that is 88 vs 82 the same amount of difference as 88 be 94. you can’t say. The data produced through assessment isn’t linear.

The data on the high end is much more accurate than the middle rated players because of film, number of eyeballs, etc. we also know a 90 is better than an 80. Is an 85 much different than an 86? Not known. Is an 88 linebacker different than a 90 receiver? The positional ranking would say the linebacker is way more important. But statistical analysis would indicate stacking a team if receivers would be better.

now, I’m Not saying data is worthless far from it. I make a lot of money because of data. I’m just saying the difference between teams with less than a point difference in overall score doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to talent. But when it comes to coaching, starting lineup scores, scores of the weakest link on the field, then they start to have more relevance
 
Not even having a player signed as a UDFA can't help with recruiting, especially since southern Illinois, Illinois State and Western Illinois has multiple people signed
this speaks volumes about the quality of our coaching staff and their reputation in the nfl
 
1.45 at that level is the difference between 275 and 335. And that is exactly my point. Being the 275th best player vs the 335th best player is being equated to 500 vs 750. What do those differences mean? Absolutely nothing. I did quite a bit of analysis with the nfl and drafting. and what the data shows is way different than what it means on a case by case basis. Or what it means beyond high and Low levels or large differentials.

Having data is better than not having data. I agree.
I like charts, so I’m happy you are producing them. I use them just like everyone else. There’s just too much inconsequential information in middle tier recruits (few eyeballs and greater variance in scores, amount of tape, etc.).

Also another question is how do you use the score. Is a .9 Difference much different? Difference score analysis, which is not even being used, is plagued with errors when used to compare numbers as people. Is a 6 point difference between a player that is 88 vs 82 the same amount of difference as 88 be 94. you can’t say. The data produced through assessment isn’t linear.

The data on the high end is much more accurate than the middle rated players because of film, number of eyeballs, etc. we also know a 90 is better than an 80. Is an 85 much different than an 86? Not known. Is an 88 linebacker different than a 90 receiver? The positional ranking would say the linebacker is way more important. But statistical analysis would indicate stacking a team if receivers would be better.

now, I’m Not saying data is worthless far from it. I make a lot of money because of data. I’m just saying the difference between teams with less than a point difference in overall score doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to talent. But when it comes to coaching, starting lineup scores, scores of the weakest link on the field, then they start to have more relevance
All good questions and points. I think one thing the charts do is expose the fallacy of just comparing the averages. When you see the chart of Illinois' vs Minnesota's recruits, and Minnesota has recruits ranked usually in multiples of hundreds of places higher than each of Illinois' recruits, you can't help but see that they clearly out-recruited Illinois. I made some changes compared to last year which I think will be a big improvement. I just ask for patience and would love to hear your feedback after I post them.
 
All good questions and points. I think one thing the charts do is expose the fallacy of just comparing the averages. When you see the chart of Illinois' vs Minnesota's recruits, and Minnesota has recruits ranked usually in multiples of hundreds of places higher than each of Illinois' recruits, you can't help but see that they clearly out-recruited Illinois. I made some changes compared to last year which I think will be a big improvement. I just ask for patience and would love to hear your feedback after I post them.
I look forward to the post!
 
Any idea who the football comittment might be from? Corey Patterson's just tweeted "oh yea we lit" followed by rod Smith's ric flair tweet and followed by jeremy Werner tweeting rod Smith's tweet and saying "possibly"?
Wonder if were getting a big time or this time ..
 
Any idea who the football comittment might be from? Corey Patterson's just tweeted "oh yea we lit" followed by rod Smith's ric flair tweet and followed by jeremy Werner tweeting rod Smith's tweet and saying "possibly"?
Wonder if were getting a big time or this time ..
Without giving it away, look for the person that is committing today.
 
All good questions and points. I think one thing the charts do is expose the fallacy of just comparing the averages. When you see the chart of Illinois' vs Minnesota's recruits, and Minnesota has recruits ranked usually in multiples of hundreds of places higher than each of Illinois' recruits, you can't help but see that they clearly out-recruited Illinois. I made some changes compared to last year which I think will be a big improvement. I just ask for patience and would love to hear your feedback after I post them.
The charts from last year comparing the recruiting class using the bar graphs were very informative. Yes the charts are based off recruiting rankings which are not always accurate. But it was a slap in the nuts and needs to improve
 
Likes: pvaughn8
Naperville
Two places, twitter and a targets list, like 247.
I was going to guess Barlev, Kreutz or Timmons but I'm not seeing that any of them are committing today?

Rod Smith liked a tweet from Peoria High WR Dionysius Hogan this morning but I don't think he has an offer yet.

That's enough internet sleuthing for me today.
 
Likes: SouthFLILLINI
Status
Not open for further replies.