On-Field Results Show Why Recruiting Rankings Matter

By Andrew Lind on February 7, 2017 at 2:15 pm
Urban Meyer and Ezekiel Elliott
Ohio State's second-ranked 2013 recruiting class translated into the 2014 national championship.
63 Comments

Think recruiting rankings don't matter? Well, you're wrong.

Sure the occasional five-star doesn't pan out or the unheralded three-star develops into a first-round NFL Draft pick, but the rankings are more often than not indicative of future success.

"It cracks me up when [people] say the ratings don't matter," Ohio State head coach Urban Meyer said on National Signing Day. "If they're keeping score, we’d like to win that thing. I do look at that. The recruiting services, although they are not 100 percent correct, they’re very close. A lot of those guys that are highly-rated guys turn out to be great players.

“You have the Darron Lees and some other under-the-radar guys that turn out to be phenomenal. The Josh Perrys. But that’s not always going to happen," Meyer continued. "But when you start throwing around numbers like [a 247Sports Composite Ranking of] 94 and five-stars and four-stars, those aren’t the end all, but sure they matter. We’re all competitive. We’re very competitive here. And to say we had one of the historical classes of all time, a lot of hard work went into that.”

Though it finished No. 2 nationally behind only Alabama, winners of seven consecutive recruiting crowns, Ohio State indeed landed one of the best classes of all time. The group of 21 not only includes a nation-high five five-stars and 14 four-stars, its 94.47 per-player average is unmatched.

But no matter how great defensive end Chase Young, linebacker Baron Browning, cornerbacks Jeffrey Okudah and Shaun Wade and quarterback Tate Martell look on paper, this class — like all others — will ultimately be judged by on-field results. Luckily for Ohio State, there's a direct correlation between signing day and conference and national championship races.

Just take a look the average composite score from the last five recruiting cycles:

Atlantic Coast Conference
Team Best Class Worst Class Average
FLORIDA STATE* 2 (2016) 11 (2013) 5.2
CLEMSON* 9 (2015) 17 (2014) 14.3
MIAMI 12 (2014) 26 (2015) 17.2
VIRGINIA TECH 21 (2013) 40 (2016) 28.4
NORTH CAROLINA 27 (2017) 35 (2016) 29.8
LOUISVILLE 32 (2015, 2017) 45 (2014) 34.8
PITTSBURGH 30 (2016) 47 (2015) 37.2
N.C. STATE 31 (2015) 59 (2013) 44.8
VIRGINIA 29 (2013) 63 (2016) 46
DUKE 33 (2016) 70 (2013) 52.2
GEORGIA TECH 44 (2015) 76 (2013) 56.2
SYRACUSE 50 (2015) 73 (2013) 60
WAKE FOREST 53 (2015) 67 (2013) 62
BOSTON COLLEGE 52 (2014) 87 (2013) 69.4
Big XII
TEAM BEST CLASS WORST CLASS AVERAGE
OKLAHOMA* 8 (2017) 19 (2016) 14.2
TEXAS 7 (2016) 26 (2017) 15.2
BAYLOR* 26 (2014) 41 (2016) 33.8
TCU* 22 (2016) 43 (2014) 34.8
OKLAHOMA STATE 28 (2014) 44 (2016) 35.8
WEST VIRGINIA 31 (2013) 57 (2017) 40
TEXAS TECH 33 (2015) 51 (2017) 43.4
IOWA STATE 53 (2017) 66 (2015) 58.4
KANSAS STATE 49 (2014) 75 (2016) 60
KANSAS 48 (2013) 74 (2015) 62
BIG TEN
TEAM BEST CLASS WORST CLASS aVERAGE
OHIO STATE* 2 (2013, 2017) 7 (2015) 3.6
MICHIGAN 4 (2013) 37 (2015) 14.4
PENN STATE* 15 (2015, 2017) 22 (2013) 21.4
MICHIGAN STATE* 17 (2016) 35 (2013) 26.6
NEBRASKA 22 (2013) 36 (2014) 27
WISCONSIN 32 (2016) 40 (2015, 2017) 36.6
MARYLAND 18 (2017) 49 (2015) 38
NORTHWESTERN 47 (2014) 54 (2015) 50.6
INDIANA 42 (2013) 63 (2017) 52.2
RUTGERS 42 (2017) 61 (2016) 52.4
IOWA 41 (2017) 60 (2015) 53
ILLINOIS 43 (2017) 72 (2014, 2016) 56.8
MINNESOTA 46 (2016) 66 (2013) 58
PURDUE 62 (2013) 80 (2016) 69.4
PAC-12
TEAM BEST CLASS WORST CLASS AVERAGE
USC 2 (2015) 13 (2013) 7.8
UCLA 7 (2013) 20 (2017) 14
OREGON* 16 (2015) 27 (2016) 20.4
STANFORD* 13 (2014) 51 (2013) 23.6
WASHINGTON* 18 (2013) 37 (2014) 26.6
ARIZONA STATE 20 (2015) 39 (2013) 29
ARIZONA 30 (2014) 50 (2016) 42.4
CALIFORNIA 31 (2016) 70 (2017) 45.8
UTAH 36 (2017) 67 (2014) 46.4
WASHINGTON STATE 41 (2015) 57 (2016) 50.2
OREGON STATE 45 (2013) 63 (2014) 54.4
COLORADO 35 (2017) 74 (2014) 63
SEC
TEAM BEST CLASS WORST CLASS AVERAGE
ALABAMA* 1 (2013-17) -- 1
LSU 2 (2014) 7 (2017) 4.8
GEORGIA 3 (2017) 12 (2013) 7.2
AUBURN* 6 (2014) 10 (2013) 8.4
FLORIDA 3 (2013) 21 (2015) 11
TEXAS A&M 5 (2014) 18 (2016) 11
TENNESSEE 4 (2015) 24 (2013) 13.2
MISSISSIPPI 5 (2016) 30 (2017) 15
SOUTH CAROLINA 19 (2014-15) 25 (2016) 20.8
ARKANSAS 23 (2013, 2015-16) 29 (2014) 25.2
MISSISSIPPI STATE 18 (2015) 35 (2014) 26
KENTUCKY 22 (2014) 38 (2015) 31.4
MISSOURI 25 (2015) 50 (2017) 40
VANDERBILT 26 (2013) 64 (2017) 47
NATIONAL RANKINGS
TEAM AVERAGE
ALABAMA** 1
OHIO STATE** 3.6
LSU 4.8
FLORIDA STATE** 5.2
GEORGIA 7.2
USC 7.8
AUBURN 8.4
FLORIDA 11
TEXAS A&M 11
TENNESSEE 13.2
UCLA 14
OKLAHOMA 14.2
CLEMSON** 14.3
MICHIGAN 14.4
MISSISSIPPI 15

*Conference Champion **National Champion

There are a few notable outliers, of course, such as Washington's run to the College Football Playoff and Texas' abysmal record under Charlie Strong. But in the end, it's easy to see why recruiting rankings matter.

Three of the last four national champions have an average finish in the Top 5 nationally, while the other finished in the Top 15. Simply put, if you recruit at an elite level, you're almost guaranteed to have an elite team.

63 Comments
View 63 Comments