February NSD Class of 2024

The main discussion board for everything Tulane athletics related.
DfromCT
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12929
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Greeniegb wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 12:07 pm
Greeniegb wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:37 am
DfromCT wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:12 am

You're telling me 3 schools paid to jump ahead of Tulane in the AAC rankings, or someone paid to have Tulane rankings downgraded? I have a tough time buying either, sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to me.

And gbg, where do you see 70 across the board?

https://247sports.com/college/tulane/Se ... l/Commits/

I was referring to ON3, a website many others on this board have referred to as well. They're updating frequently throughout the day. Here's what they have for Tulane: https://www.on3.com/college/tulane-gree ... n-commits/

If we got Zycarl Lewis, we should be moving up!
Tulane 2024 Football Commits (19)
TULANE 2024 COMMITS 247SPORTS

Overall Rank: 67
Composite Rank: 66
Transfer Rank: 59


247 Sports are more accurate with Rivals updated with each signee also

Head coach: Jon Sumrall
Director of Player Personnel: Cole Heard

Breakdown
BY STATE
Florida (5)
Louisiana (5)
Mississippi (4)
Alabama (3)
Georgia (1)
Texas (1)
BY POSITION
Quarterback (1)
Running Back (1)
Receiver (2)
Offensive Line (6)
Defensive Line (1)
Defensive Back (7)
Special Teams (1)

Go to the real recruiting 247 Sports, ON3 still has Fritz as our coach, rediculous can't even update the coach.
No shit Sherlock, that's why I put the link in my post 2 of your posts higher Do you even read the posts you respond to? And when you go to font size 150 your spelling and grammar errors are magnified.

Please don't post your reply in the middle of my post. I want no credit for Newman's thoughts from the basement.


" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
User avatar
MicMan
Swell
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:00 pm
Status: Offline

A great day for the Wave! 24/7's historic data is interesting -- they only have Makhi Hughes as the 47th highest-ever rated signee and yet a case could be made he was the best player on the field in '23. Pratt ranked 87th and we know how he turned out.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9867
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

With the signings today of Zycarl Lewis and Reese Baker we're now at

#67 Overall
#65 Composite
#59 Transfer

And our average recruit ranking is 84.99, by far the best we've ever had. And other than the three JUCO guys who are at the bottom of the rankings, every other player is AT LEAST an 85, up to Jayden Lewis at 90.

Good times.

https://247sports.com/college/tulane/Se ... l/Commits/
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

DfromCT wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:57 am
arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:30 am OL Reese Baker to Tulane. Good player.

Now the wait for Zycarl.
Baker is a good get. I saw ON3 had him all but enrolled at Auburn!

Somehow ON3 has downgraded us today. We went from 74th to 85 and from 3rd to 7th in the AAC. They even dropped our average player ranking by .2 . I don't get it. By other measures we're having a great recruiting and transfer year.
D- not criticizing, just discussing. We are all excited by the Sumrall hire and players he's brought on board. Like many others I consider Rivals the gold standard of the recruiting sites. They now have all 19 of our signees ranked. They have us at 67 which is the 3rd year in a row with that ranking. It's jumped from below 100 to that so the Sumrall additions have helped. The reason were not higher is that 10 of our signees are 2 stars. As to the transfers we are all excited by their potential based on their profiles but for the most part they haven't done much on the field. The last 2 years have turned out good for us with the transfers much more so than previous years. Hopefully this group turns out to be the best of all of them.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
User avatar
MicMan
Swell
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:00 pm
Status: Offline

Kicker still needed.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9867
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Coach Sumrall's presser.


"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
Greeniegb
Swell
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:37 am
Status: Offline

winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 1:50 pm
DfromCT wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:57 am
arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:30 am OL Reese Baker to Tulane. Good player.

Now the wait for Zycarl.
Baker is a good get. I saw ON3 had him all but enrolled at Auburn!

Somehow ON3 has downgraded us today. We went from 74th to 85 and from 3rd to 7th in the AAC. They even dropped our average player ranking by .2 . I don't get it. By other measures we're having a great recruiting and transfer year.
D- not criticizing, just discussing. We are all excited by the Sumrall hire and players he's brought on board. Like many others I consider Rivals the gold standard of the recruiting sites. They now have all 19 of our signees ranked. They have us at 67 which is the 3rd year in a row with that ranking. It's jumped from below 100 to that so the Sumrall additions have helped. The reason were not higher is that 10 of our signees are 2 stars. As to the transfers we are all excited by their potential based on their profiles but for the most part they haven't done much on the field. The last 2 years have turned out good for us with the transfers much more so than previous years. Hopefully this group turns out to be the best of all of them.
Why you guys insist on looking at ON3 recruiting service that has us rated worst. 247 Sports has us 3rd in the Conference and lower 60"s Nationally more accurate than ON3!!!
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

I referred to Rivals. Try reading what you are responding to. As to 247 it gives out stars like candy.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9867
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:33 pm I referred to Rivals. Try reading what you are responding to. As to 247 it gives out stars like candy.
To be fair though, its still consistent, so a 4 star at 247 is better than a 3 star at 247. In fact, one could say 247 is more accurate. Its a lot easier to distinguish between two players. Both could be 5.7 at Rivals, but one is an 86 and one is an 87 at 247. If you've got 8 players that are all 5.7 on Rivals, how do you distinguish which is better?

Its basically the lumping vs splitting argument. Some things are better lumped into fewer groups, and some are better being broken down in more detail. This is a situation where I think its better to split than lump.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
mbissanti
High Tide
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2023 7:13 pm
Location: Hill Country Texas
Status: Offline

RobertM320 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:41 pm
winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:33 pm I referred to Rivals. Try reading what you are responding to. As to 247 it gives out stars like candy.
To be fair though, its still consistent, so a 4 star at 247 is better than a 3 star at 247. In fact, one could say 247 is more accurate. Its a lot easier to distinguish between two players. Both could be 5.7 at Rivals, but one is an 86 and one is an 87 at 247. If you've got 8 players that are all 5.7 on Rivals, how do you distinguish which is better?

Its basically the lumping vs splitting argument. Some things are better lumped into fewer groups, and some are better being broken down in more detail. This is a situation where I think its better to split than lump.
but take them all as somebody's opinion and often not indicative of that player's future success
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

RobertM320 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:41 pm
winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:33 pm I referred to Rivals. Try reading what you are responding to. As to 247 it gives out stars like candy.
To be fair though, its still consistent, so a 4 star at 247 is better than a 3 star at 247. In fact, one could say 247 is more accurate. Its a lot easier to distinguish between two players. Both could be 5.7 at Rivals, but one is an 86 and one is an 87 at 247. If you've got 8 players that are all 5.7 on Rivals, how do you distinguish which is better?

Its basically the lumping vs splitting argument. Some things are better lumped into fewer groups, and some are better being broken down in more detail. This is a situation where I think its better to split than lump.
As I said and many others have too over the years 247 is too generous with its ratings. So ultimately it's not much of a guide at all. That's why Rivals continues to be the gold standard. On Rivals you have a range of 5.5 to 5.7 for 3 stars. A 5.5 is a low 3 star, 5.6 a mid 3 star and a 5.7 is a high 3 star.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

mbissanti wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 4:22 pm
RobertM320 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:41 pm
winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:33 pm I referred to Rivals. Try reading what you are responding to. As to 247 it gives out stars like candy.
To be fair though, its still consistent, so a 4 star at 247 is better than a 3 star at 247. In fact, one could say 247 is more accurate. Its a lot easier to distinguish between two players. Both could be 5.7 at Rivals, but one is an 86 and one is an 87 at 247. If you've got 8 players that are all 5.7 on Rivals, how do you distinguish which is better?

Its basically the lumping vs splitting argument. Some things are better lumped into fewer groups, and some are better being broken down in more detail. This is a situation where I think its better to split than lump.
but take them all as somebody's opinion and often not indicative of that player's future success
mb= first off its a fan forum and it's NSD so it's always going to be discussed. Then there's the fact that it has proven pretty accurate over the years. Yes someone will always say what about Forte. Of course there are misses but not a whole lot or the services would have been out of business long ago. As to 23 wins the last 2 years you have to factor in that it's a new day and age with the wide open transfers. We finally hit on our transfers in that period. So they were right with their evaluation of our HS class otherwise we wouldn't have needed those transfers. Hopefully we have hit on them yet again this year.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
User avatar
OUG
Riptide
Posts: 2930
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:59 am
Status: Offline

You’ll never convince me that someone is rigorously scouting 4000+ high school football players from around the country, watching all their tape and breaking it down, and assigning consistent rankings according to common criteria.

Like anything else there’s a skinny part of the curve with elite talent that anyone can identify as elite; you don’t need these services to tell you. Then there’s a huge fat part of the curve of FBS players where they’re solidly FBS talent but projecting how their talent develops at the next level is hard. I think services could theoretically help here, but there are too many of these players to truly rank them objectively. This is where “grouping is better than splitting” as someone else alluded to.

The services stay in business because people will gobble up football news. They sell fans the dream that they have all these gems ready to come in and take their program to the next level. But if these guys could really evaluate talent in a helpful way (I.e., telling you which 3 stars were going to be great players), they’d be working in the football offices at major schools.
greenphantom
Swell
Posts: 1994
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:38 pm
Status: Offline

OUG wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:06 pm You’ll never convince me that someone is rigorously scouting 4000+ high school football players from around the country, watching all their tape and breaking it down, and assigning consistent rankings according to common criteria.

Like anything else there’s a skinny part of the curve with elite talent that anyone can identify as elite; you don’t need these services to tell you. Then there’s a huge fat part of the curve of FBS players where they’re solidly FBS talent but projecting how their talent develops at the next level is hard. I think services could theoretically help here, but there are too many of these players to truly rank them objectively. This is where “grouping is better than splitting” as someone else alluded to.

The services stay in business because people will gobble up football news. They sell fans the dream that they have all these gems ready to come in and take their program to the next level. But if these guys could really evaluate talent in a helpful way (I.e., telling you which 3 stars were going to be great players), they’d be working in the football offices at major schools.
+1. Hit the nail on the head.
arkhou02
High Tide
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Forget all that crap on the sites. We won 23 games with below average classes according to the “experts “. They have no clue about our class. They look strictly at the top 20 classes and disect them. They don’t disect Tulane’s class. They never do. Look at the offers these kids had. That is the most powerful indicator we can use. This class has at least 10 guys that were offered by SEC schools. That is meaningful. The class probably has 20 to 25 guys offered by a P5. And we have 7 guys that we competed for with G5’s and you can bet one or two of this group will be steals. It is ridiculous to talk about the recruiting sites when they just don’t care about the Tulane’s of the world. Can anyone honestly say they believe these sites based on our on field performance the past two years?
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

OUG wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:06 pm You’ll never convince me that someone is rigorously scouting 4000+ high school football players from around the country, watching all their tape and breaking it down, and assigning consistent rankings according to common criteria.

Like anything else there’s a skinny part of the curve with elite talent that anyone can identify as elite; you don’t need these services to tell you. Then there’s a huge fat part of the curve of FBS players where they’re solidly FBS talent but projecting how their talent develops at the next level is hard. I think services could theoretically help here, but there are too many of these players to truly rank them objectively. This is where “grouping is better than splitting” as someone else alluded to.

The services stay in business because people will gobble up football news. They sell fans the dream that they have all these gems ready to come in and take their program to the next level. But if these guys could really evaluate talent in a helpful way (I.e., telling you which 3 stars were going to be great players), they’d be working in the football offices at major schools.
Yet over the two decades they have been pretty accurate across the board. So there's that. Look, everyone gets it we haven't got high rankings so our fans will hate on it. Yet we sure have lost a lot with all those lowly rated classes and would have continued to not do well without the transfers the last 2 seasons.
Last edited by winwave on Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
Greeniegb
Swell
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:37 am
Status: Offline

[/b]Ended up #65 in the nation best I have seen, nice work by Sumrall and the entire coaching staff!!!

https://247sports.com/Season/2024-Footb ... mRankings/


#67 by Rivals, so ON3 is the oddball out, Rivals and 247 both consistent.

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2024 ... recruiting
Last edited by Greeniegb on Wed Feb 07, 2024 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:11 pm Forget all that crap on the sites. We won 23 games with below average classes according to the “experts “. They have no clue about our class. They look strictly at the top 20 classes and disect them. They don’t disect Tulane’s class. They never do. Look at the offers these kids had. That is the most powerful indicator we can use. This class has at least 10 guys that were offered by SEC schools. That is meaningful. The class probably has 20 to 25 guys offered by a P5. And we have 7 guys that we competed for with G5’s and you can bet one or two of this group will be steals. It is ridiculous to talk about the recruiting sites when they just don’t care about the Tulane’s of the world. Can anyone honestly say they believe these sites based on our on field performance the past two years?
Like I said above if they were wrong about our HS classes we wouldn't have needed all those transfers for those 2 years. Without those transfers we don't win anywhere near 23 games with just the guys who were our HS recruits. We are going to continue to need them. We have to hope we keep hitting on those transfers.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
arkhou02
High Tide
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:42 pm
arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:11 pm Forget all that crap on the sites. We won 23 games with below average classes according to the “experts “. They have no clue about our class. They look strictly at the top 20 classes and disect them. They don’t disect Tulane’s class. They never do. Look at the offers these kids had. That is the most powerful indicator we can use. This class has at least 10 guys that were offered by SEC schools. That is meaningful. The class probably has 20 to 25 guys offered by a P5. And we have 7 guys that we competed for with G5’s and you can bet one or two of this group will be steals. It is ridiculous to talk about the recruiting sites when they just don’t care about the Tulane’s of the world. Can anyone honestly say they believe these sites based on our on field performance the past two years?
Like I said above if they were wrong about our HS classes we wouldn't have needed all those transfers for those 2 years. Without those transfers we don't win anywhere near 23 games with just the guys who were our HS recruits. We are going to continue to need them. We have to hope we keep hitting on those transfers.
Rivals was wrong about everything. Here are our transfers the past two years -

Shaadie Clayton-Johnson - 4 star
Patrick Jenkins - 4 star
Nick Anderson - 2 star
Deuce Watts - 3 star
Phat Watts - 2 star
Lawrence Keys - 3 star
Lance Robinson - 3 star
Shae Wyatt - no rating
Jarius Monroe - 3 star
DJ Douglas - no rating
Lummie Young - 3 star
Valentino Ambrosio - no rating
Kanan Ray - 4 star
Prince Pines - 2 star
Dontae Fleming - 2 star
Yulkeith Brown - 4 star
Tyler Grubbs - 3 star
Chris Carter - 3 star
Cameron Wire - 3 star
Jared Small - no rating
Tahir Anoor - 2 star
AJ Hampton - 3 star
Kam Pedescleaux - no rating
Darius Swanson - no rating
Shedro Louis - no rating

That is 25 transfers in total with their Rivals high school rankings next to their names. Looks a lot like our prior year classes which would be rated about 65-80 on Rivals. Only 4 stars to contribute considerably are Jenkins & Ray. Brown should be a huge contributor going forward. And if any of the recruits listed above would have signed with Tulane out of high school , there probably would have been a discount of at least 1/3 of the classes star ranking. These services have no clue as to who we sign for the most part. They missed on so many guys above because they didn’t sign with a major P5.
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:32 pm
winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:42 pm
arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:11 pm Forget all that crap on the sites. We won 23 games with below average classes according to the “experts “. They have no clue about our class. They look strictly at the top 20 classes and disect them. They don’t disect Tulane’s class. They never do. Look at the offers these kids had. That is the most powerful indicator we can use. This class has at least 10 guys that were offered by SEC schools. That is meaningful. The class probably has 20 to 25 guys offered by a P5. And we have 7 guys that we competed for with G5’s and you can bet one or two of this group will be steals. It is ridiculous to talk about the recruiting sites when they just don’t care about the Tulane’s of the world. Can anyone honestly say they believe these sites based on our on field performance the past two years?
Like I said above if they were wrong about our HS classes we wouldn't have needed all those transfers for those 2 years. Without those transfers we don't win anywhere near 23 games with just the guys who were our HS recruits. We are going to continue to need them. We have to hope we keep hitting on those transfers.
Rivals was wrong about everything. Here are our transfers the past two years -

Shaadie Clayton-Johnson - 4 star
Patrick Jenkins - 4 star
Nick Anderson - 2 star
Deuce Watts - 3 star
Phat Watts - 2 star
Lawrence Keys - 3 star
Lance Robinson - 3 star
Shae Wyatt - no rating
Jarius Monroe - 3 star
DJ Douglas - no rating
Lummie Young - 3 star
Valentino Ambrosio - no rating
Kanan Ray - 4 star
Prince Pines - 2 star
Dontae Fleming - 2 star
Yulkeith Brown - 4 star
Tyler Grubbs - 3 star
Chris Carter - 3 star
Cameron Wire - 3 star
Jared Small - no rating
Tahir Anoor - 2 star
AJ Hampton - 3 star
Kam Pedescleaux - no rating
Darius Swanson - no rating
Shedro Louis - no rating

That is 25 transfers in total with their Rivals high school rankings next to their names. Looks a lot like our prior year classes which would be rated about 65-80 on Rivals. Only 4 stars to contribute considerably are Jenkins & Ray. Brown should be a huge contributor going forward. And if any of the recruits listed above would have signed with Tulane out of high school , there probably would have been a discount of at least 1/3 of the classes star ranking. These services have no clue as to who we sign for the most part. They missed on so many guys above because they didn’t sign with a major P5.
That looks nothing like our classes and would have been rated much higher than 65-80. There are four 4 stars. We've never signed a class like that. People here would have been going bonkers over it. Thirteen out of the 25 are 3 star and above. We needed them b/c they were right about our HS recruiting. Like I said above some of our fans will knocking the ratings b/c they haven't been kind to us but the results fit what they said about those classes since the beginning of this century. Hurrah for the open transfer era.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
arkhou02
High Tide
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:00 pm
arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:32 pm
winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:42 pm

Like I said above if they were wrong about our HS classes we wouldn't have needed all those transfers for those 2 years. Without those transfers we don't win anywhere near 23 games with just the guys who were our HS recruits. We are going to continue to need them. We have to hope we keep hitting on those transfers.
Rivals was wrong about everything. Here are our transfers the past two years -

Shaadie Clayton-Johnson - 4 star
Patrick Jenkins - 4 star
Nick Anderson - 2 star
Deuce Watts - 3 star
Phat Watts - 2 star
Lawrence Keys - 3 star
Lance Robinson - 3 star
Shae Wyatt - no rating
Jarius Monroe - 3 star
DJ Douglas - no rating
Lummie Young - 3 star
Valentino Ambrosio - no rating
Kanan Ray - 4 star
Prince Pines - 2 star
Dontae Fleming - 2 star
Yulkeith Brown - 4 star
Tyler Grubbs - 3 star
Chris Carter - 3 star
Cameron Wire - 3 star
Jared Small - no rating
Tahir Anoor - 2 star
AJ Hampton - 3 star
Kam Pedescleaux - no rating
Darius Swanson - no rating
Shedro Louis - no rating

That is 25 transfers in total with their Rivals high school rankings next to their names. Looks a lot like our prior year classes which would be rated about 65-80 on Rivals. Only 4 stars to contribute considerably are Jenkins & Ray. Brown should be a huge contributor going forward. And if any of the recruits listed above would have signed with Tulane out of high school , there probably would have been a discount of at least 1/3 of the classes star ranking. These services have no clue as to who we sign for the most part. They missed on so many guys above because they didn’t sign with a major P5.
That looks nothing like our classes and would have been rated much higher than 65-80. There are four 4 stars. We've never signed a class like that. People here would have been going bonkers over it. Thirteen out of the 25 are 3 star and above. We needed them b/c they were right about our HS recruiting. Like I said above some of our fans will knocking the ratings b/c they haven't been kind to us but the results fit what they said about those classes since the beginning of this century. Hurrah for the open transfer era.
The 2024 class includes two 5 star players and two four star kids and our class is hovering at 65-70. Definitely a better class on paper than the previous two years. And don’t forget that Rivals will definitely drop a five star and four star to four and three stars 90% of the time if signing with a school like Tulane. The thought process is how did they end up at Tulane. There must be a problem. We have seen it over and over. And just look at the list above. There are at least 12 players that were rated incorrectly because they were never seen by Rivals and went to G5 schools. The exceptions are Douglas and Small. The typical scenario is Pines. From Baton Rouge, signs with Lamar and is ranked a whopping 2 stars. If a local like him goes to LSU, you bet your ass he is 3 or 4 stars. It’s a joke how they rate these players.
DfromCT
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12929
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:37 pm
mbissanti wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 4:22 pm
RobertM320 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:41 pm

To be fair though, its still consistent, so a 4 star at 247 is better than a 3 star at 247. In fact, one could say 247 is more accurate. Its a lot easier to distinguish between two players. Both could be 5.7 at Rivals, but one is an 86 and one is an 87 at 247. If you've got 8 players that are all 5.7 on Rivals, how do you distinguish which is better?

Its basically the lumping vs splitting argument. Some things are better lumped into fewer groups, and some are better being broken down in more detail. This is a situation where I think its better to split than lump.
but take them all as somebody's opinion and often not indicative of that player's future success
mb= first off its a fan forum and it's NSD so it's always going to be discussed. Then there's the fact that it has proven pretty accurate over the years. Yes someone will always say what about Forte. Of course there are misses but not a whole lot or the services would have been out of business long ago. As to 23 wins the last 2 years you have to factor in that it's a new day and age with the wide open transfers. We finally hit on our transfers in that period. So they were right with their evaluation of our HS class otherwise we wouldn't have needed those transfers. Hopefully we have hit on them yet again this year.
I agree 100% that rivals is the best source for accuracy. But they’re all speculators and a whole lot of ALL of their rankings is based upon who is recruiting the player. Look at the all-time highest ranked Tulane recruits. More than half of them I’ve never heard of or I’ve heard of them and they’ve done nothing to justify being one of our highest ranked recruits of all time. Not all, mind you, but more than half.

winwave, you didn’t tell me anything I don’t already know about the services. The only reason I brought up ON3 is some other posters have used them and pointed them out, and it was idiotic that they were dropping our rankings when we were having a good day. And as much as you think the rating services are accurate over time, see my argument above about their lists of Tulane highest all-time ranked recruits. They’re not worth the paper they’re not written on.
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 26466
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Be proactive, being reactive is for losers..
Tulane Class of 1981
winwave
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 24738
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

arkhou02 wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:51 am
winwave wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:00 pm
arkhou02 wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:32 pm

Rivals was wrong about everything. Here are our transfers the past two years -

Shaadie Clayton-Johnson - 4 star
Patrick Jenkins - 4 star
Nick Anderson - 2 star
Deuce Watts - 3 star
Phat Watts - 2 star
Lawrence Keys - 3 star
Lance Robinson - 3 star
Shae Wyatt - no rating
Jarius Monroe - 3 star
DJ Douglas - no rating
Lummie Young - 3 star
Valentino Ambrosio - no rating
Kanan Ray - 4 star
Prince Pines - 2 star
Dontae Fleming - 2 star
Yulkeith Brown - 4 star
Tyler Grubbs - 3 star
Chris Carter - 3 star
Cameron Wire - 3 star
Jared Small - no rating
Tahir Anoor - 2 star
AJ Hampton - 3 star
Kam Pedescleaux - no rating
Darius Swanson - no rating
Shedro Louis - no rating

That is 25 transfers in total with their Rivals high school rankings next to their names. Looks a lot like our prior year classes which would be rated about 65-80 on Rivals. Only 4 stars to contribute considerably are Jenkins & Ray. Brown should be a huge contributor going forward. And if any of the recruits listed above would have signed with Tulane out of high school , there probably would have been a discount of at least 1/3 of the classes star ranking. These services have no clue as to who we sign for the most part. They missed on so many guys above because they didn’t sign with a major P5.
That looks nothing like our classes and would have been rated much higher than 65-80. There are four 4 stars. We've never signed a class like that. People here would have been going bonkers over it. Thirteen out of the 25 are 3 star and above. We needed them b/c they were right about our HS recruiting. Like I said above some of our fans will knocking the ratings b/c they haven't been kind to us but the results fit what they said about those classes since the beginning of this century. Hurrah for the open transfer era.
The 2024 class includes two 5 star players and two four star kids and our class is hovering at 65-70. Definitely a better class on paper than the previous two years. And don’t forget that Rivals will definitely drop a five star and four star to four and three stars 90% of the time if signing with a school like Tulane. The thought process is how did they end up at Tulane. There must be a problem. We have seen it over and over. And just look at the list above. There are at least 12 players that were rated incorrectly because they were never seen by Rivals and went to G5 schools. The exceptions are Douglas and Small. The typical scenario is Pines. From Baton Rouge, signs with Lamar and is ranked a whopping 2 stars. If a local like him goes to LSU, you bet your ass he is 3 or 4 stars. It’s a joke how they rate these players.
Our 2024 class does not have two 5 stars nor 2 4 stars per Rivals. We have 10 2 stars and 9 3 stars. hat's why we have that ranking of 67.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
Post Reply