ESPN+ Which college football teams do the least with the most in recruiting?

ben

Senior
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
3,946

i won't copy and paste the whole thing, but here's some of the more interesting data:

NFL draft selections​

ESPN 300 commitments from the 2015 to 2017 classes who were selected in the NFL draft.

Auburn 8.6% (2)
Tennessee 11.1% (2)
Florida State 14.8% (4)
Oklahoma 22.2% (4)
Texas 23% (6)
USC 30% (9)
Michigan 33.3% (9)
Georgia 33.3% (11)
LSU 37.1% (13)
Alabama 37.8% (14)
Clemson 40% (10)
Ohio State 44.8% (13)
Miami 47.3% (9)

First-team all-conference selections​

Tennessee 0% (0)
Oklahoma 5.5% (1)
Florida State 7.4% (2)
Miami 10.5% (2)
Texas 11.5% (3)
Georgia 15.15% (5)
Auburn 17.3% (4)
LSU 20% (7)
USC 23.3% (7)
Alabama 24.3% (9)
Michigan 29.6% (8)
Ohio State 31% (9)
Clemson 44% (11)

All-America selections​

Miami 0% (0)
Tennessee 0% (0)
Florida State 0% (0)
USC 0% (0)
Michigan 3.7% (1)
Texas 3.8% (1)
Auburn 4.3% (1)
Oklahoma 5.5% (1)
Georgia 6% (2)
Ohio State 6.8% (2)
LSU 11.4% (4)
Clemson 16% (4)
Alabama 18.9% (7)

Five-star recruits​

There were 44 prospects rated five stars from 2015 to 2017, but not every team signed a five-star prospect, so that won't ultimately be factored in to who has done the least with the most.

Transfers​

Here are the percentages of ESPN 300 recruits from 2015 to 2017 who did not finish their career with the teams they signed with:
Oklahoma 72.2% (13)
Michigan 62.9% (17)
Texas 61.5% (16)
Florida State 59.2% (16)
USC 53.3% (16)
Auburn 52.1% (12)
Alabama 51.3% (19)
Ohio State 44.8% (13)
LSU 40% (14)
Georgia 39.3% (13)
Tennessee 33.3% (6)
Clemson 28% (7)
Miami 26.3% (5)

Who did the least with the most?​

Based on all the numbers, a few schools stand out with low grades.

Florida State is in the bottom five statistically for every single category. The Seminoles had the third worst draft percentage, all-conference and all-American players, and were No. 4 in the percentage of transfers it has seen from its ESPN 300 prospects.

Tennessee ranks in the bottom five for each category except for the number of transfers or dismissals, where the Vols had the third-best percentage, indicating players weren't leaving as much as other places.

Oklahoma, surprisingly, is in the bottom five for each category except for All-Americans, where the Sooners had one of their 18 signees become an All-American. Their high transfer total is a big reason they ranked so low in other categories.

Texas is also in the bottom five for each category but one. Similar to Oklahoma, the only category the Longhorns are not in the bottom five is All-Americans, where Texas had one of its 26 eligible players selected as a consensus All-American. Texas was fifth worst for drafted players (six), fifth worst for first-team all-conference players (three) and third worst for number of players to transfer or leave the program (16). Of those 16 players, nine came from the 2016 class, five of which were defensive recruits.
 

DMoney

D-Moni
Staff member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,266
This goes to a long-running debate I've had with @Ethnicsands.

Yes, evaluations can always improve. But the biggest problem by far is the deployment of these players at the college level.

47.3% of our blue chips got drafted. That is the highest rate on the list. For perspective, the next five schools are Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, LSU and Georgia. Everyone would agree those are the five best programs in the nation.

But we got very little out of those guys in college, largely due to scheme issues. We produced zero All-Americans and two All-Conference guys. The other teams in that category are underachievers like Texas, Tennessee, FSU and USC. Tellingly, the top producers of All-Americans are the schools behind us on the NFL list: Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Ohio State and Georgia. They turn players into production.

The most surprising stat for me was the transfers. Miami had the lowest percentage of transfers of the 14 schools.
 

MetiSkeemz

Junior
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,573
This was an excellent read. Too bad it’s premium content. Spoiler: FSU does ŚHIT for their kids in regards to getting to the next level 🤣
 

Kn[]_[]ckles3o5

Sophomore
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
1,096
This goes to a long-running debate I've had with @Ethnicsands.

Yes, evaluations can always improve. But the biggest problem by far is the deployment of these players at the college level.

47.3% of our blue chips got drafted. That is the highest rate on the list. For perspective, the next five schools are Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, LSU and Georgia. Everyone would agree those are the five best programs in the nation.

But we got very little out of those guys in college, largely due to scheme issues. We produced zero All-Americans and two All-Conference guys. The other teams in that category are underachievers like Texas, Tennessee, FSU and USC. Tellingly, the top producers of All-Americans are the schools behind us on the NFL list: Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Ohio State and Georgia. They turn players into production.

The most surprising stat for me was the transfers. Miami had the lowest percentage of transfers of the 14 schools.
The all american thing isn't all on the coaches and players. I believe Jaquan Johnson was an All American level Safety and was snubbed. Rousseau also should have made All American last season. The Miami bias is real and factors in to that particular metric more so than others.
 

JayCane20

Seasoned Vet
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
6,066
This goes to a long-running debate I've had with @Ethnicsands.

Yes, evaluations can always improve. But the biggest problem by far is the deployment of these players at the college level.

47.3% of our blue chips got drafted. That is the highest rate on the list. For perspective, the next five schools are Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, LSU and Georgia. Everyone would agree those are the five best programs in the nation.

But we got very little out of those guys in college, largely due to scheme issues. We produced zero All-Americans and two All-Conference guys. The other teams in that category are underachievers like Texas, Tennessee, FSU and USC. Tellingly, the top producers of All-Americans are the schools behind us on the NFL list: Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Ohio State and Georgia. They turn players into production.

The most surprising stat for me was the transfers. Miami had the lowest percentage of transfers of the 14 schools.

They each also had 30+ ESPN 300 players over a 3 year span to Miami’s 19. Add in 11 “talented“ guys to what you already had and the team is going to be better all around and will probably result in either 1 or 2 of the additional 11 being all American caliber or benefit one of the existing guys to produce at an all American level. Just being devils advocate here. I agree with everything about the production aspect
 

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
20,527
This goes to a long-running debate I've had with @Ethnicsands.

Yes, evaluations can always improve. But the biggest problem by far is the deployment of these players at the college level.

47.3% of our blue chips got drafted. That is the highest rate on the list. For perspective, the next five schools are Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, LSU and Georgia. Everyone would agree those are the five best programs in the nation.

But we got very little out of those guys in college, largely due to scheme issues. We produced zero All-Americans and two All-Conference guys. The other teams in that category are underachievers like Texas, Tennessee, FSU and USC. Tellingly, the top producers of All-Americans are the schools behind us on the NFL list: Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Ohio State and Georgia. They turn players into production.

The most surprising stat for me was the transfers. Miami had the lowest percentage of transfers of the 14 schools.
You said it. I’ve always agreed that the things you’ve been focused on have, indeed, been real issues. heck, I’ve been amongst the earlier group of fans who saw the negatives on each of the last 5 coaches, probably while more upbeat fans were still saying they could succeed.

However, where we disagree is you minimize our roster deficiencies, which have been a glaring issue the past almost 20 years. It’s a lot of things, and I’ve talked about them all, that cause it. Poor, lazy recruiting, bad evaluations, imbalanced classes, weak lines, terrible QBs, inability to retain talented seniors, all leading to lack of depth, lack of experience, lack of competition, and majorly exploitable weaknesses. Poor S&C and development too, of course. You talk too much about our ‘talent’ as if someone playing in the nfl in 6 years means he was a good player at UM last year. Zion Nelson could make the nfl one day. He was a roster hole last year, and I don’t blame him for it. Just shows you the problems on our OL roster that he had to start at LT`as a 2* true frosh.

Fact is, we’ve sucked for almost 20 years because bad coaches are bad at multiple things. And a handful of marginal nfl players doesn’t make a roster. You think Clemson gets more out of some non-nfl guys than we do out of marginal nfl guys just because of coaching. I think it’s not just coaching. Rosters need balance and different types of skills. Different positions do. The old saying is teams aren’t supposed to be all ‘A’ players. In our case, they’re not supposed to be all made up of athletically talented, flawed, modestly skilled fringe nfl players. Clemson does coach much better, but they also appreciate that some guys with toughness, fire, leadership, instincts and play-making skills can be valuable even if they’re a step too slow for the high ratings types.

Our actual rosters - both two-deep and competition below them - have been too flawed for ages. That needs to be fixed. It's not a defense of coaching, but rather an indictment of it. Coaches are supposed to manage these things.
 
Last edited:

DMoney

D-Moni
Staff member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,266
However, where we disagree is you minimize our roster deficiencies, which have been a glaring issue the past almost 20 years.

Nobody has ever denied our roster deficiencies compared to the elite teams. However, people like myself have focused on our roster supremacy compared to the rest of the ACC. And every single time an objective third party like ESPN performs a talent analysis, it supports our view.

This year is a perfect example. We're 5-1, and many are focusing on the poor quality of our opponents. But that's always been the case. Miami has a better roster than nearly every team in the conference. The roster has clear flaws. Other teams have much deeper flaws. The difference now is that we have systems that fit the players on both sides of the ball.

Your rallying cry has always been "evaluations." Well, a third party looked at the issue, and found that Miami had the greatest percentage of NFL players from its blue-chip prospects. Number one in hit rate. And the five teams behind it are the best programs in football. As is always the case, Miami is the outlier.

The response is usually, "where are the first rounders?" And it's a fair question. But it has very little to do with evaluations. During ESPN's sample period, Miami missed on Calvin Ridley, Jerry Jeudy and Chris Henderson. That had nothing to do with evaluations. We found them early, offered them early and recruited them like crazy. Unfortunately, we were a bad program that misused our talent. So they went elsewhere.

Which brings us back to the blueprint of success that we've laid out for years. First step is utilizing our current NFL talent in a way that consistently beats inferior conference opponents. Think early Clemson. Second step is building our depth with local talent similar to Charlie Strong-era Louisville. The next step, once we've had some success, is landing the local first rounders that have been going to Alabama and Georgia. The final step is recruiting nationally from a position of power.

It's never just one thing. But talent has always been last on the list of the problems.
 

streetja

Please fire me
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
4,044
Of the 9 players drafted in that time span 7 came from the 2015 class. If you combine the two preceding and two succeeding years we had 6 players drafted total.

We've experienced an uptick with 14 players drafted these last three years and yet we've managed to go 13-13 the last two years. How much is that due to coaching and underperforming over sheer roster imbalance as ESands is saying? What good is a fourth round safety, a sixth round DE, and a 7th round WR if you have Malik Rosier as your QB? If you have one of the worst OL's in the nation? If for the second year in a row you have one of the worst WR cores this school has ever seen?

I don't really buy the Miami has such a talent advantage over everyone in the Coastal argument anymore. You can point to 14 guys drafted, 10 of which were taken in the 4th round or later, and say I'm wrong. Or you can point to the other 52 guys those 14 had to play with and realize that a few talented players surrounded by an average team doesn't really make you special.
 

DMoney

D-Moni
Staff member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,266
I don't really buy the Miami has such a talent advantage over everyone in the Coastal argument anymore. You can point to 14 guys drafted, 10 of which were taken in the 4th round or later, and say I'm wrong. Or you can point to the other 52 guys those 14 had to play with and realize that a few talented players surrounded by an average team doesn't really make you special.
Are you suggesting that the bottom of half of, say, Virginia's roster is more talented than Miami? If so, I reject that premise. Most of those are kids that Virginia would have killed to sign out of high school.

There's a reason UVA fell off the cliff so hard after losing a couple players.
 

Sebastianspipe

Freshman
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
808
This goes to a long-running debate I've had with @Ethnicsands.

Yes, evaluations can always improve. But the biggest problem by far is the deployment of these players at the college level.

47.3% of our blue chips got drafted. That is the highest rate on the list. For perspective, the next five schools are Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, LSU and Georgia. Everyone would agree those are the five best programs in the nation.

But we got very little out of those guys in college, largely due to scheme issues. We produced zero All-Americans and two All-Conference guys. The other teams in that category are underachievers like Texas, Tennessee, FSU and USC. Tellingly, the top producers of All-Americans are the schools behind us on the NFL list: Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Ohio State and Georgia. They turn players into production.

The most surprising stat for me was the transfers. Miami had the lowest percentage of transfers of the 14 schools.

Just watch the Clemson game one more time. #10 constantly creating havoc by overloading one side of the line taking away zone read.
Lawrence threw the ball downfield 5 times max, everything was sideways, to employ Etienne in space. Their line executed these plays very well.

Do they have overwhelmingly more talent or are they just used better. I believe they have more impact talent, but that talent shines because they are used perfectly. Etienne was a monster and had 1 big run. How was he a monster, in the passing game? Multiple looks, plays, etc. They always have a numbers advantage. and Ohio State does the same thing. Scheme is huge advantage for these teams. Clemson has competed in the trenches too with the big boys, yet none of their OL are drafted, explain that one.

The one team that routinely beats you on talent is Bama.

LSU finally deployed their talent in a scheme that fit perfectly last year and what a miracle, they destroy everyone. Burrow is the easy answer too, but did he improve that much from 2018 or was hefinally unleashed? 2013 and 2014 LSU had just as much talent on offense, OBJ, Jarvis Landry, Jeremy Hill, Spencer Ware, Trai Turner All pro Guard, Mingo, Eric Reid, Tre Davious White, Kendall Beckwith, Danille Hunter (stud), Jamal Adams Ego Ferguson on D. LSU was the poster child for not deploying their talent properly. Their D was stacked, but they still couldn't win because their offense was light years behind. Move on to 2015 and beyond, they had guys like Fournette, Chark, Guice, etc. with a stout D.

Deployment and development have been our biggest disasters for years and continue to be.

Pope is a great example being used as a true X receiver when he is not, and finally we are getting something out of him, on the short stuff and his confidence is growing by just watching him play harder.

Gurvan Hall should be playing a bigger role in robber type coverage, etc.

The only games that we've played fast on both sides of the ball and deployed our players in the last 15 years that I can remember were VT, ND 2017, and Louisville/ FSU this year.

Since Clemson specifically this season, we are playing timid and slow, especially on D save for Frierson and Hall on some plays. What happened to the tackles for loss, to the disruption that Manny brought us as a coordinator?
 
Last edited:
Top