Illinois Football Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#102      
IlliniChin14
#103      
BoiseBaller
1768327589738.jpeg
 
#105      
bigcityillini
the juiceman cometh said:
It is easier when you're talking about an evaluation period of 2 years vs what, 2 days? 2 hours? 2 minutes?


I must have missed that. Why don't you just link the single most persuasive data you've provided.

Also, again you're mischaracterizing the discussion. You've essentially said 2 things: 1) good teams rely on P4 transfers, not G5 and 2) the transfer portal rankings are a reliable indicator of success. The argument against you has been on those 2 points.


Can you explain what is inconsistent?

Yeah, retention is probably more economical, generally. The post is premised on an implicit assumption that you have to want the players you're retaining. Then there is the express qualification that individual cases will vary.

I still think all of that is true. I am sure there were some players who are leaving where we think we can find better. And there are others we wanted to bring back, but not at the price others are willing to pay.
Click to expand...
As has been stated. The top 1,000ish transfers are what matters most. I don't care if they properly rank some D2 defensive back, there are levels to this, and we should be recruiting at a level where our players ARE accurately evaluated and ranked. Also, previous production and PFF scores are looked at.

"Also, again you're mischaracterizing the discussion. You've essentially said 2 things: 1) good teams rely on P4 transfers, not G5"

Well use this year's 12 team college football field. Left out JMU and Tulane for obvious reasons.

Alabama (High School commits: 79.65%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 13.27%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 7.08%)
Oregon (High School commits: 77.88%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 12.39%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 9.73%)
Oklahoma (High School commits: 74.31, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 9.17%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 16.51%)
Ohio State (High School commits: 82.36, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 9.24%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 8.40%)
Indiana (High School commits: 65.09%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 11.32%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 23.58%)
Ole Miss (High School commits: 56.43%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 20.5%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 23.07%)
Miami (High School commits: 74.78%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 13.04%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 12.18%)
Texas Tech (High School commits: 60.88%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 29.26%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 9.86%)
Texas A&M (High School commits: 67.88%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 19.2%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 12.8%)
Georgia (High School commits: 81.4%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 10.2%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 8.5%)

So, on average (High School commits: 72%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 15%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 13%). Of that breakdown. The starters on those teams were heavily skewed towards commits and P4 transfer. About 85% of starting players on these teams came from those two categories. Meaning 87% of college football playoff rosters were P4 commits or transfers, and 85% of real production comes from this group. Non-P4 transfers accounted for 13% of total rosters in the college football playoffs, and about 15% of production (understanding that starting does not equal production, but gotta work today lol and cant do all that math).

Illinois Breakdown: (High School commits: 64.4%, Power 4 transfers (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): 15.7%, Other transfers (G5/FCS/JUCO/D-II): 20.1%). Take that breakdown however you'd like to. But it shows that Illinois is comprised of non-P4 transfers at a much higher rate than the national average for high performing programs.

2) the transfer portal rankings are a reliable indicator of success.
I used the transfer portal team rankings for 2025 and then compared it to the ESPN Power Index. There is a strong correlation. Transfer Rank (1 = best) vs FPI Rank (1 = best). If we roughly compute the correlation. Correlation coefficient ≈ +0.45 to +0.55. This means a moderate, meaningful positive correlation. (you can check all this using AI if you'd like). But there is strong data that suggest doing well in the portal rankings has a positive indicator towards success. So i think they do matter and using single data points instead of larger models to look at this is silly.
 
Last edited:
#107      
bigcityillini
Sorry for nerding out, but I love some data. Especially correlation type work. And watching people argue from single data points was driving me nuts as someone who works with large data sets for a living lol. It's simple, yes portal rankings matter. Are they the only thing that does? Absolutely not. And we have won at a high clip given how bad our portal production has actually been. Go back a take a look at the portal classes... they haven't really been stellar. I'd argue the reason Bret has won 19+ games the last 2 years is not our portal success, it's been our HS recruiting, development, and retention. Luke, Clement, Arkin, Davis, Tomi, Coenen, Thompson were nice players, but where would this team have been without Jacas, Bailey, Hank, the RB's, Miles Scott, Dixon, McCullom, Rosiek, Clark, Olano, Barna, Kreutz, Gesky, Xavier Scott etc.

We have not ever really "hit it" in the portal and that needs to change. People that keep pointing to previous wins as a reason to not fret... that really doesn't matter when our model has clearly shifted. We used to retain platers, now we are not, relying heavier on a system which has not been as fruitful for us.
 
#108      
ptgrd23
We have never been able to compete head to head recruiting vs ND, OSU, Michigan, GA, AL or USC.

Mike White used CA JC transfers to close talent gap and superior West Coast offense.

Mackovic had Jeff George.

Ron Turner had Kurt Kittner and Brandon Lloyd.

Zook could recruit - Juice, Benn, Mendenhall, Martinez, Vontae.

Brett @ Wisconsin was always developing players over 4 years (5 counting redshirt). $NIL and portal has blown that model up so he is reinventing himself. He has done very well so far. 10-3 and 9-4. Next year will be a challenge but this is the new college football environment. Adapt or die.

Some very good coaches struggling or fired - Lincoln Riley (hot seat until this year), Dabo, Franklin, Kelly, Gundy. It is CFP or bust for blue bloods.
 
#110      
bluemountain
bigcityillini said:
Sorry for nerding out, but I love some data. Especially correlation type work. And watching people argue from single data points was driving me nuts as someone who works with large data sets for a living lol. It's simple, yes portal rankings matter. Are they the only thing that does? Absolutely not. And we have won at a high clip given how bad our portal production has actually been. Go back a take a look at the portal classes... they haven't really been stellar. I'd argue the reason Bret has won 19+ games the last 2 years is not our portal success, it's been our HS recruiting, development, and retention. Luke, Clement, Arkin, Davis, Tomi, Coenen, Thompson were nice players, but where would this team have been without Jacas, Bailey, Hank, the RB's, Miles Scott, Dixon, McCullom, Rosiek, Clark, Olano, Barna, Kreutz, Gesky, Xavier Scott etc.

We have not ever really "hit it" in the portal and that needs to change. People that keep pointing to previous wins as a reason to not fret... that really doesn't matter when our model has clearly shifted. We used to retain platers, now we are not, relying heavier on a system which has not been as fruitful for us.
Click to expand...
The caveat to your argument is that Luke had a disproportionate impact on our success. You replace Luke with Brandon Peters for example, and this year we lose to USC, NW, possibly Duke and play in a crappy bowl game. In 2024 we lose to Nebby, Kansas, Rutgers and maybe Purdue. On the flip side, if you put this year's Luke on the '21 team, they probably win 8 or 9.
 
#111      
bigcityillini
bluemountain said:
The caveat to your argument is that Luke had a disproportionate impact on our success. You replace Luke with Brandon Peters for example, and this year we lose to USC, NW, possibly Duke and play in a crappy bowl game. In 2024 we lose to Nebby, Kansas, Rutgers and maybe Purdue. On the flip side, if you put this year's Luke on the '21 team, they probably win 8 or 9.
Click to expand...
And Luke came from where? A P4 school.

QBs tend to have the highest impact of any position in sports. Hence why they are paid the way they are. I’m not really sure what your point is other than portal QB coming from a P4 team tends to hit at the highest rate. We definitely hit on Luke. That’s for sure. And Tommy. Another P4 guy. Houser will be the test.
 
#112      
lstewart53x3
bigcityillini said:
And Luke came from where? A P4 school.

QBs tend to have the highest impact of any position in sports. Hence why they are paid the way they are. I’m not really sure what your point is other than portal QB coming from a P4 team tends to hit at the highest rate. We definitely hit on Luke. That’s for sure. And Tommy. Another P4 guy. Houser will be the test.
Click to expand...
Diego Pavia from New Mexico.
Kurtis Rourke from Ohio.
Taylen Green from Boise St.
Jayden Maiava from UNLV.
Darian Mensah from Tulane.
Brendan Sorsby from James Madison.
Trinidad Chambliss from Ferris St.

Plenty of talented QBs come from the lower levels. Just requires solid scouting and development, which our staff has proven they can do.

This past year, we had the 64th ranked roster in terms of talent according to 247’s talent composite rankings, yet finished the year at #25 in the SP+.

You mentioned Tommy Devito. Lunney and Illinois helped him have his best year.

He had a career 63% completion rate, but completed 69% of his passes at Illinois + had a career 133 passer rating, but had a 141.2 passer rating at Illinois.

And that was with a step up in competition. His best year at Syracuse was against the 67th ranked SOS. His one year at Illinois was against the 46th ranked SOS.
 
Last edited:
#113      
bigcityillini
I just posted a whole in depth analysis so we could get away from single data points… and you go right back to single data points lol

High end college rosters are simply not building around non power 4 talent. They supplement their roster with it.
 
#115      
lstewart53x3
lstewart53x3 said:
Diego Pavia from New Mexico.
Kurtis Rourke from Ohio.
Taylen Green from Boise St.
Jayden Maiava from UNLV.
Darian Mensah from Tulane.
Brendan Sorsby from James Madison.
Trinidad Chambliss from Ferris St.

Plenty of talented QBs come from the lower levels. Just requires solid scouting and development, which our staff has proven they can do.

This past year, we had the 64th ranked roster in terms of talent according to 247’s talent composite rankings, yet finished the year at #25 in the SP+.

You mentioned Tommy Devito. Lunney and Illinois helped him have his best year.

He had a career 63% completion rate, but completed 69% of his passes at Illinois + had a career 133 passer rating, but had a 141.2 passer rating at Illinois.

And that was with a step up in competition. His best year at Syracuse was against the 67th ranked SOS. His one year at Illinois was against the 46th ranked SOS.
Click to expand...
Quoting myself here to add one more thing:

Yes, Tommy technically came from a P4 team, but in his best season at Syracuse their FPI SOR was ranked at #88. This past season, ECU’s SOR was ranked #45.

So ECU was a much better team.
 
#118      
bigcityillini
I have experience with large data sets and correlation analysis. Provide some actual data once in a while instead of snark and conjecture lol. There is not a single data point that shows recruting lower level players equates to better success. Not a single one. But I’m sure you’ll provide me with one player who did well and that will validate it 🤣.
 
#119      
Serious Late
lstewart53x3 said:
Diego Pavia from New Mexico.
Kurtis Rourke from Ohio.
Taylen Green from Boise St.
Jayden Maiava from UNLV.
Darian Mensah from Tulane.
Brendan Sorsby from James Madison.
Trinidad Chambliss from Ferris St.

Plenty of talented QBs come from the lower levels. Just requires solid scouting and development, which our staff has proven they can do.

This past year, we had the 64th ranked roster in terms of talent according to 247’s talent composite rankings, yet finished the year at #25 in the SP+.

You mentioned Tommy Devito. Lunney and Illinois helped him have his best year.

He had a career 63% completion rate, but completed 69% of his passes at Illinois + had a career 133 passer rating, but had a 141.2 passer rating at Illinois.

And that was with a step up in competition. His best year at Syracuse was against the 67th ranked SOS. His one year at Illinois was against the 46th ranked SOS.
Click to expand...
If we want to improve from #25 in SP+, we have to improve on #64 in talent. The most obvious difference between us and the next tier isn't coaching, or what we do with the talent we have, it's the quality and level of talent on the roster.

No idea what the net impact of our current in/out talent level is, but I'm pretty confident as it stands now we aren't making a clear and obvious jump to that next tier of talent. Doesn't mean we haven't identified the right talent to do so, just that we haven't had a "no-doubt we are executing with the top tier" level of talent.

Sure feels like a lot of people are dismissing that 10 of the 12 teams in the CFP this year received a top 25 Team Transfer ranking last season, though.

Both things can be true a) Bret has earned our trust and b) we aren't clearly and obviously blowing the doors off this portal season.
 
#120      
bigcityillini
Serious Late said:
If we want to improve from #25 in SP+, we have to improve on #64 in talent. The most obvious difference between us and the next tier isn't coaching, or what we do with the talent we have, it's the quality and level of talent on the roster.

No idea what the net impact of our current in/out talent level is, but I'm pretty confident as it stands now we aren't making a clear and obvious jump to that next tier of talent. Doesn't mean we haven't identified the right talent to do so, just that we haven't had a "no-doubt we are executing with the top tier" level of talent.

Sure feels like a lot of people are dismissing that 10 of the 12 teams in the CFP this year received a top 25 Team Transfer ranking last season, though.

Both things can be true a) Bret has earned our trust and b) we aren't clearly and obviously blowing the doors off this portal season.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it…. That was my next long data post. All 10 playoff teams had top 25 rankings in the portal. Data holds true year over year. We can all debate the merit of said rankings for individual players. But overall? Teams who recruit well regarded players in the portal instead of fliers and diamonds in the rough tend to perform better year over year.
 
#123      
jmwillini
Not complaining about ranking numbers. The staff knows way more than I do and I trust their judgement.

My numbers concern is the IN/OUT numbers on D. 2 IN / 13 OUT on just these 3 positions. Hopefully we have more bodies incoming, lol.

DL:
In: Janki - 86;
Out: Durojaye - 88; Neal - 88; McCollum - 87; Coenen - 86; Warren - 85

LB:
In: Edmonson - 87;
Out: Hayden - 87; Hood - 86; Baker - 84;

S:
In: None
Out: Patterson - 86; Woodward - 85; Rooks - 84; Reynolds - 84; Turner - 81
 
#124      
illini0440
jmwillini said:
Not complaining about ranking numbers. The staff knows way more than I do and I trust their judgement.

My numbers concern is the IN/OUT numbers on D. 2 IN / 13 OUT on just these 3 positions. Hopefully we have more bodies incoming, lol.

DL:
In: Janki - 86;
Out: Durojaye - 88; Neal - 88; McCollum - 87; Coenen - 86; Warren - 85

LB:
In: Edmonson - 87;
Out: Hayden - 87; Hood - 86; Baker - 84;

S:
In: None
Out: Patterson - 86; Woodward - 85; Rooks - 84; Reynolds - 84; Turner - 81
Click to expand...
Safety: Bailey back, Williams is a safety
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back