Recruit Rankings vrs. Current Depth Chart

by chowder on Jul 16, 2009 10:46 PM PDT

The following charts compare the success of Cal players relative to their ranking amongst the recruiting services. I cited both ESPN and Rivals’ evaluation of the 2006 and 2007 recruiting classes. The player’s status on current depth chart is based on the post-spring depth chart for 2009. As a point of reference, the 2006 class consists of either redshirt juniors or true seniors, while the 2007 class consists of either redshirt sophomores or true juniors.

A couple of notes:

1) I did not include JC transfer players.

2) The post-spring depth chart extends two deep at most positions, exceptions are at wide receiver, right guard, and fullback.

3) I assumed Kevin Riley will win the starting job, followed by Brock Mansion.

2006		ESPN		RIVALS
Name	Proj. Pos.	Position Rank	Grade	Stars	RR	Status on Current Depth Chart
Darian Hagan	DB	8	82	4	5.9	*Starting cornerback	'=)
Derrick Hill	DT	8	81	4	6	*Starting nose tackle	'=)
Kevin Rily	QB	14	80	4	5.8	*Starting quarterback	'=)
Chris Guarnero	OL	5	80	4	5.8	*Starting center	'=)
James Montgomery	RB	42	77	4	5.9	Transferred
Tracy Slocum	RB	48	77	4	5.8	Transferred
Justin Prueitt	DT	34	76	3	5.6	*Back-up right tackle
RJ Garrett	FB	10	76	3	5.5
Daniel Lofton	WR	73	75	3	5.7
Keith Browner Jr.	DE	62	74	3	5.6
Brandon Jones	DB	61	72	3	5.7	Transferred
Mike Costanzo	OL	63	70	4	5.8
Isaac Leatiota	DT	76	67	3	5.6
Jeremy Ross	WR	175	61	3	5.5	*Back-up wide receiver
Tyson Alualu	-	-	40	3	5.7	Starting defensive end
Charles Amadi	-	-	40	3	5.5
Mike Mohamed	-	-	40	2	5.2	*Starting LB
						* Indicates Redshirt
						=) Started as Redshirt So. or earlier
Summary:
17 Recruits			35% are Starters
6 Starters			12% are Back-ups
8 Players on the 2-deep chart			53% not on depth chart
9 Players not on the 2-deep chart			18% transferred
3 Player transfers I'm aware of.
1 Position switch

2007		ESPN		RIVALS
Name	Proj. Pos.	Position Rank	Grade	Stars	RR	Status on Current Depth Chart
Jahvid Best	RB	22	79	4	5.9	Starting running back	'=)
Brock Mansion	QB	18	78	3	5.7	*Back-up quarterback
Matt Summers-Gavin	OL	25	78	4	5.9	*Back-up left guard
DJ Campbell	DB	31	77	3	5.6	*Back-up safety
Bryan Anger	K	9	77	3	5.5	*Starting punter
Sam Demartinis	OL	44	77	3	5.6
DJ Holt	DE	51	76	3	5.7	*Back-up linebacker
Alex Lagemann	WR	93	74	3	5.6	*Starting slot receiver
Robert Mullins	LB	41	74	3	5.7
Mitchell Schwartz	OL	105	72	3	5.7	*Starting right tackle	'=)
Savai'I Eselu	TE	78	69	3	5.7
Sean Cattouse	DB	97	69	3	5.6	*Back-up safety
Scott Smith	DE	133	69	3	5.6
Chris Conte	DB	68	68	4	5.8	Back-up cornerback	'=)
Soloman Aigamana	DE	-	40	2	5.4
Mike Calvin	WR	-	40	3	5.6	*Third wide receiver
Justin Cheadle	OL	-	40	3	5.7	*Third right guard
Todd Huber	OL	-	40	3	5.7
Ernest Owusu	DE	-	40	3	5.7	*Back-up defensive end
John Tyndall	LB	-	40	3	5.5	*Back-up fullback
Shane Vereen	RB	-	40	4	5.9	*Back-up running back
Cameron Jordan	DE	-	40	3	5.6	Starting defensive end
						* Indicates Redshirt
						=) Started as Redshirt So. or earlier
Summary:
22 Recruits			23% are Starters
5 Starters			50% are Back-ups
16 Players on the 2-deep chart			27% not on depth chart
6 Players not on the 2-deep chart			0% transferred
2 Position switch

2006
Ranking	Total	Starter		Back-up		Not on Depth Chart
4 Stars	7	4	57%	0	0%	43%
3 Stars	9	1	11%	2	22%	67%
2 Stars	1	1	100%	0	0%	0%
80+	4	4	100%	0	0	0%
78-79	0	-	-	-	-	-
75-77	5	0	0%	1	20%	80%
70-74	3	0	0%	0	0%	100%
65-69	1	0	0%	0	0%	100%
60-64	1	0	0%	1	100%	0%
40 (unranked)	3	2	67%	0	0%	33%

2007
Ranking	Total	Starter		Back-up		Not on Depth Chart
4 Stars	4	1	25%	3	75%	0%
3 Stars	17	4	24%	8	47%	29%
2 Stars	1	0	0%	0	0%	100%
80+	0	-	-	-	-	-
78-79	3	1	33%	2	67%	0%
75-77	4	1	25%	2	50%	25%
70-74	3	2	67%	0	0%	33%
65-69	4	0	0%	2	50%	50%
60-64	0	0	0%	0	0%	0%
40 (unranked)	8	1	13%	5	63%	25%

COMBINED
Ranking	Total	Starter		Back-up		Not on Depth Chart
4 Stars	11	5	45%	3	27%	27%
3 Stars	26	5	19%	10	38%	43%
2 Stars	2	1	50%	0	0%	50%
80+	4	4	100%	0	0%	0%
78-79	3	1	33%	2	67%	0%
75-77	9	1	11%	3	33%	56%
70-74	6	2	33%	0	0%	66%
65-69	5	0	0%	3	60%	40%
60-64	1	0	0%	1	100%	0%
40 (unranked)	11	3	27%	5	45%	27%

I wanted to just post the data and then let the reader derive their own conclusions, however there are a few points I'd like to accentuate:

1) It is okay to get excited about the big name recruits. All players rated at 79 or better started by their Redshirt Sophomore season. Meanwhile the percentage of 4-Star recruits not on the current depth chart is dramatically lower, and strongly influenced by James Montgomery and Tracey Slocum's decision to transfer.

2) Beware of the mid-range prospect. Prospects rated in the 70-77 range by ESPN have the lowest success rate of becoming either a starter or a primary back-up.

3) Don't fear the unknown. 12 of the 17 prospects rated 69 to unranked are poised to be major contributors this year. These players include the likes of Mike Mohamad, Cameron Jordan, Tyson Alualu, and Shane Vereen.

The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 5 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It still looked better in excel, primarily because it had dividing lines, but I’m just happy it was able to post without completely disrupting the formatting.

by chowder on Jul 16, 2009 10:48 PM PDT reply actions

Slocum didn’t transfer

All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!

by rollonubears on Jul 16, 2009 10:55 PM PDT reply actions

Daniel Lofton transferred.

RJ Garrett was released from the team.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Jul 16, 2009 10:55 PM PDT reply actions

Robert Mullins was lost to career ending injury from high school, I think.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Jul 16, 2009 10:56 PM PDT reply actions

Late to the party on this post,

but I can refute this. He was definitely at the workout yesterday, and looking healthy.

Alright, fine, I admit it! "Hydration Technician" really DOES just mean "water boy!"

by giantfan5 on Jul 22, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Cool story, Hansel.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Jul 22, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Upon closer inspection

of his bio on the official website, he did enroll late due to injury, but he’s there now and looks fine.

Alright, fine, I admit it! "Hydration Technician" really DOES just mean "water boy!"

by giantfan5 on Jul 22, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Praise be to Tedford that we have an insider!

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Jul 22, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Two notes

1) I wonder how many of these rankings have to do with the familiarity of the schools they originate from. Say you have a recruit from an LA high school who does okay versus outstanding recruits from small markets. The recruits from big cities might have things weighed to their advantage.
2) Likewise, I wonder if these lower ranked recruits are from smaller markets. Because they don’t get as much air time and don’t have as much footage available on them, it’d make sense to downgrade their ratings because you’re not quite sure where they’ll end up on the spectrum.

So it’d be something like
5 star talent: Big market cities, generally a sure thing
4 star talent: Big markets, just familiar with these players a lot more than small market players
3 star talent: Smaller market areas, generally thought of highly but not as much familiarity
2 star talent: Smallest market areas, no idea what they could be like.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I’ve always felt rankings/grades were based on familiarity more than talent.

by Avinash Kunnath on Jul 17, 2009 1:02 AM PDT reply actions

Recruiting rankings have a lot of issues, to say the least. I can’t find the story I was looking for, but it was from a recruiter for a program that basically said he can call up the ratings guys and talk up a prospect and essentailly get the prospects rating changed. If it was a guy they wanted to keep on the DL, they could get him moved down a star, or if they wanted to make their recruiting class look good for more job security, they could get a bunch of the players bumped up a star.

I did find this:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/orl-sportsum-recruiting-21062109jun21,0,6303143.story

I’m sure those issues you brought up are present, but they’re just another in a long string of issues with recruiting rankings…

by Missing Barry on Jul 17, 2009 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions

I seem to remember a pretty solid breakdown of why that recruiter was full of shit. In any case, being a lone recruiter, uncorroborated by any other source the South Carolina coach lacks credibility.

by AERose on Jul 17, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I never saw any response to the article. If you have links to the article itself and any responses that’d be great…

by Missing Barry on Jul 18, 2009 6:37 AM PDT up reply actions

While it’s important to realize recruiting rankings aren’t gospel truth, they are actually reasonably correlated to on-field success. Dr. Saturday’s site has a rather poor system of archiving which is why I’m not going to spend the 15 minutes it would take to look up the specific posting, but he did a regression analysis looking at a program’s total number of wins compared to their overall recruiting “points” in a 5 year period. Unsurprisingly, those programs that topped out in points, USC, Florida, Texas, tOSU, etc. were all clustered near the top of the win column too.

There are ample stories of 5* and 4* recruits not making it to the next level. But taken as a whole, 5* and 4* recruits are still more likely to make it than 3* and 2* ones.

by Nashville on Jul 18, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions

“While it’s important to realize recruiting rankings aren’t gospel truth, they are actually reasonably correlated to on-field success.”

Yeah, this is how I look at them, basically. Getting a highly ranked class is generally better than a lower ranked class, but that’s about as far as I go in my opinion. There are certainly a lot of issues with the rankings people need to keep in mind, but they also need to remember for every 2-star Alex Mack there are 1,000 other 2 star prospects out there that don’t make it. For every 5-star bust the media likes to point to, there’s a much better % of prospects that actually do become good players.

by Missing Barry on Jul 19, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions

On the one hand I shouldn’t have even posted a response if I knew I was going to be too lazy to find the requisite source materials, but on the other hand… well, OK, I don’t actually think there is an other hand in this case.

by AERose on Jul 18, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions

It’s ok. a limited amount of knowledge with no corroboration is better than nothing at all. :)

by Missing Barry on Jul 19, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Tagline!

CGB: a limited amount of knowledge with no corroboration!

by LeonPowe on Jul 19, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Well played, Sir!

rec’d

Go Bears Go

by Rocksanddirt on Jul 20, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions

I want to do some research on this...

Time for some number crunching!

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Jul 26, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Vereen

Vereen is only unranked by ESPN because they never reviewed his tape. He is a 5.9 by Rivals and a 4 star by Scout. He was arguably Cal’s second highest rated recruit behind Best.

It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.

by BeastMode on Jul 20, 2009 2:27 PM PDT reply actions

I don’t like ESPN’s recruiting service. I prefer the star system to their grading. Plus, their grading for basketball and football are so different. In their football ratings, 79s are the equivalent of a 4 star player. In their basketball ratings, everyone and their mother is a 90.

Class of 2009 for football on ESPN: only 7 players are ranked a 90 or above. Highest is 93.
Class of 2010 basketball on ESPN: Every single player in the top 100 is at least a 93. Even the lowest rated guy (Cal commit Allen Crabbe, who is a 3 star on Rivals).

Some uniformity would be nice. How is it ridiculously hard to be a 90+ for football, but they hand out 90s in basketball to anybody with legs.

I feel they are the least reliable of all the services. In my opinion, Rivals is the best.

All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!

by rollonubears on Jul 20, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I don’t like recruiting services, because they couldn’t measure the heart of someone like Vinnie Strang.

by Avinash Kunnath on Jul 20, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions

It’s because basketball players are awesome. All of them.

by Missing Barry on Jul 20, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions

I actually like the Rivals and ESPN rating system because the range of the ratings is much bigger than Scouts’ simple 4 star rating system (they say it’s five stars, but there are never any one star recruits).

As for everyone and their mother being a 90 on ESPN’s ratings for basketball, that’s because there are more highschool bball players who are developed and ready to make an impact on the next level than there are football players. Going from highschool to college for basketball is not as big of a leap from going from highschool to college for football.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Jul 21, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions

WOW! Excellent post!

This is something I’ve always wondered about. Well done.

by danzig on Jul 21, 2009 2:05 PM PDT reply actions

Many Thanks

I find myself constantly being sucked into the hype of recruiting, and was curious to see the reality vrs the hype. Then, I thought I would share it.

by chowder on Jul 21, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't know why I didn't read this earlier

but it is really interesting to me that Tyson and Cam Jordan were so apparently under the radar, considering how good both of them are. It’s cool to see that somebody can come in fairly unheralded, and become a great player and an integral part of the team’s success.

Alright, fine, I admit it! "Hydration Technician" really DOES just mean "water boy!"

by giantfan5 on Jul 22, 2009 9:50 AM PDT reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Golden Bears Football Schedule

Fresno St.	Sat 09/03	W 36 - 21
@ Colorado The Ralphie Report	Sat 09/10	W 36 - 33
Presbyterian	Sat 09/17	W 63 - 12
@ Washington UW Dawg Pound	Sat 09/24	L 23 - 31
@ Oregon Addicted To Quack	Thu 10/06	L 15 - 43
USC Conquest Chronicles	Thu 10/13	L 9 - 30
Utah Block U	Sat 10/22	W 34 - 10
@ UCLA Bruins Nation	Sat 10/29	L 14 - 31
Washington St. CougCenter	Sat 11/05	W 30 - 7
Oregon St. Building The Dam	Sat 11/12	W 23 - 6
@ Stanford Rule Of Tree	Sat 11/19	L 28 - 31
@ Arizona St. House Of Sparky	Fri 11/25	W 47 - 38
@ Texas Burnt Orange Nation	Wed 12/28	L 10 - 21