I cannot believe there are teams with worse rankings than us.

Cincinnati (No. 58): Rivals.com ranked Cincinnati's class as the worst of any automatic-qualifying team in the FBS.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/06/na tional-signing-day-winners-losers-mississippi-texa s-am/1896967/

That's a little unfair, since Cincinnati is no longer an AQ team as far as the current signees are concerned.

But yeah, we recruited better than a number of teams. That's what we brought Beckman here to do, that's what he hired his staff to do, we're a Big Ten team, kids will take a chance on that.

jparillini wrote: I cannot believe there are teams with worse rankings than us.

Cincinnati (No. 58): Rivals.com ranked Cincinnati's class as the worst of any automatic-qualifying team in the FBS.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/06/na tional-signing-day-winners-losers-mississippi-texa s-am/1896967/

Talk to me in 2014.  But for numbers and potential, this looks pretty solid for Becks.

I feel like Bailey determines the class. He's the only possible way we get things going.

iluvrt wrote:

jparillini wrote: I cannot believe there are teams with worse rankings than us.

Cincinnati (No. 58): Rivals.com ranked Cincinnati's class as the worst of any automatic-qualifying team in the FBS.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/06/na tional-signing-day-winners-losers-mississippi-texa s-am/1896967/

Talk to me in 2014.  But for numbers and potential, this looks pretty solid for Becks.

I agree.  Assuming Beckman lasts for three seasons, we won't know much until 2014.  This coming season is a wash.  You don't win with 25 incoming freshmen in this conference, even if four or five guys are rated high. And the depth is not there with the returning players/upperclassmen.

Illinigrad wrote:

iluvrt wrote:

jparillini wrote: I cannot believe there are teams with worse rankings than us.

Cincinnati (No. 58): Rivals.com ranked Cincinnati's class as the worst of any automatic-qualifying team in the FBS.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/06/na tional-signing-day-winners-losers-mississippi-texa s-am/1896967/

Talk to me in 2014.  But for numbers and potential, this looks pretty solid for Becks.

I agree.  Assuming Beckman lasts for three seasons, we won't know much until 2014.  This coming season is a wash.  You don't win with 25 incoming freshmen in this conference, even if four or five guys are rated high. And the depth is not there with the returning players/upperclassmen.

Colorado fired their coach after 2 years. I'd say we're about even in terms of prestige with them, so I think we could fire Beckman if he has another year where the team doesn't improve at any point.

Surprised that it is even ranked in the middle of BigTen. It seems lots of other schools did not do well.

DerrickRose wrote: That's a little unfair, since Cincinnati is no longer an AQ team as far as the current signees are concerned.

But yeah, we recruited better than a number of teams. That's what we brought Beckman here to do, that's what he hired his staff to do, we're a Big Ten team, kids will take a chance on that.

based on Scout's star averages we'd be 8th in the conference. rivals would have us 10th on that criteria. We;ve got a few good players coming in. with them, it's average for our conference. Without them it's a terrible class.

I see Beckman getting 3 years just because I don't want any more hires from Thomas. But I don't see this class getting us to a bowl game without more help and better coaching.

TheBeastisback wrote: based on Scout's star averages we'd be 8th in the conference. rivals would have us 10th on that criteria. We;ve got a few good players coming in. with them, it's average for our conference. Without them it's a terrible class.

I see Beckman getting 3 years just because I don't want any more hires from Thomas. But I don't see this class getting us to a bowl game without more help and better coaching.

Can I highlight the irony?  You rail on this class and show disappointment over Beckman being here, but fail to rail on the 3 (far worse!!) recruiting classes that Beckman inherited and made up the roster he had to work with.  If you don't think this class is good enough to win games, and its clearly light years ahead of the current roster, then maybe your anger is displaced

scout's rankings
this class 42 (i think it's too high)
2012 69 (transition year)
2011 41
2010 57

Light years ahead? No. Better? maybe. But the recruiting ranking don't explain a conference 0-fer.

UofIL25 wrote:

TheBeastisback wrote: based on Scout's star averages we'd be 8th in the conference. rivals would have us 10th on that criteria. We;ve got a few good players coming in. with them, it's average for our conference. Without them it's a terrible class.

I see Beckman getting 3 years just because I don't want any more hires from Thomas. But I don't see this class getting us to a bowl game without more help and better coaching.

Can I highlight the irony?  You rail on this class and show disappointment over Beckman being here, but fail to rail on the 3 (far worse!!) recruiting classes that Beckman inherited and made up the roster he had to work with.  If you don't think this class is good enough to win games, and its clearly light years ahead of the current roster, then maybe your anger is displaced

TheBeastisback wrote: scout's rankings
this class 42 (i think it's too high)
2012 69 (transition year)
2011 41
2010 57

Light years ahead? No. Better? maybe. But the recruiting ranking don't explain a conference 0-fer.

UofIL25 wrote:

TheBeastisback wrote: based on Scout's star averages we'd be 8th in the conference. rivals would have us 10th on that criteria. We;ve got a few good players coming in. with them, it's average for our conference. Without them it's a terrible class.

I see Beckman getting 3 years just because I don't want any more hires from Thomas. But I don't see this class getting us to a bowl game without more help and better coaching.

Can I highlight the irony?  You rail on this class and show disappointment over Beckman being here, but fail to rail on the 3 (far worse!!) recruiting classes that Beckman inherited and made up the roster he had to work with.  If you don't think this class is good enough to win games, and its clearly light years ahead of the current roster, then maybe your anger is displaced

If you haven't read this blog post, its certainly worth the read:
http://alioneye.com/2013/02/05...breakdown-2013/

But, the part that is most eye-opening about this class vs. the past 3 is the potential impact players in the class.  This is how scarce potential difference-makers were in Zook's last 3 classes and why we have such little talent on the roster.

"But overall, our best class since 2009. I think I can confidently say that if we ranked our top-10 recruits (based on offer lists and stars) in the last four classes, Bailey, Day, Mosely, Clements, and James all make that top 10. Actually, let me do that.

1. Aaron Bailey
2. Jon Davis
3. Darius Mosely
4. Paul James III
5. Darius Millines
6. Jarrod Clements
7. Jonathan Brown
8. Caleb Day
9. Earnest Thomas
10. TJ Neal "

Beckman does himself no favors with the referee-tripping extravaganza and tobacco-gate, but Zook left him a whole lot of nothing to work with

I saw that article, too, but that does not explain why most of the preseason predictions I saw had us going to bowl games.

Maybe I can help;  accuracy is not a prerequisite in order for people to make predictions.  

TheBeastisback wrote: I saw that article, too, but that does not explain why most of the preseason predictions I saw had us going to bowl games.

This.  The main input for prognosticators is how the team fared the prior year.  If anyone wanted to do a detailed study into which players we lost, which players would make up the bulk of the team, and how much talent (or lack thereof) we had from the prior recruiting class, the expectations should've been far less.  There is a tremendous correlation between recruiting and on-field success, and when you essentially stop bringing in talent for 3 straight years, the on-field results will suffer

illinoisrecruiter wrote: Maybe I can help;  accuracy is not a prerequisite in order for people to make predictions.  

TheBeastisback wrote: I saw that article, too, but that does not explain why most of the preseason predictions I saw had us going to bowl games.

well, ok, but I think the problem with the players was aggravated by the coaching, or lack thereof, that they received.

TheBeastisback wrote:  We;ve got a few good players coming in. with them, it's average for our conference. Without them it's a terrible class.

So if you take away the good players from a class, then that class wouldn't be as good?  Wow, thanks for pointing out that bit of wisdom. 

In other news, water is still wet.

TheBeastisback wrote: scout's rankings
this class 42 (i think it's too high)
2012 69 (transition year)
2011 41
2010 57

Light years ahead? No. Better? maybe. But the recruiting ranking don't explain a conference 0-fer.

UofIL25 wrote:

TheBeastisback wrote: based on Scout's star averages we'd be 8th in the conference. rivals would have us 10th on that criteria. We;ve got a few good players coming in. with them, it's average for our conference. Without them it's a terrible class.

I see Beckman getting 3 years just because I don't want any more hires from Thomas. But I don't see this class getting us to a bowl game without more help and better coaching.

Can I highlight the irony?  You rail on this class and show disappointment over Beckman being here, but fail to rail on the 3 (far worse!!) recruiting classes that Beckman inherited and made up the roster he had to work with.  If you don't think this class is good enough to win games, and its clearly light years ahead of the current roster, then maybe your anger is displaced

One thing to consider is the amount of washouts/guys who never made it from the 2010-2012 classes. That would drop the rankings of those classes significantly.

Now we have to hope that the 2013 class stays in tact for the most part.

Injuries and lack of experienced depth also hurt the coaching aspect. At one point late in the season, I believe we Bentley, Eaton Spence, Svetina, Monheim, Caldwell, and Teko Powell all on the field at the same time. That is 6 true or rs freshman playing on defense very early in Big Ten games.

That is rough for a new staff. None the less, the coaching doesn't inspire confidence. We can both agree on that.

---------------------------------------------
--- TheBeastisback wrote:

well, ok, but I think the problem with the players was aggravated by the coaching, or lack thereof, that they received.

---------------------------------------------

TheBeastisback wrote: well, ok, but I think the problem with the players was aggravated by the coaching, or lack thereof, that they received.

That's certainly true for the offense since we had 2 incompetent OC's spewing their incompetence.

At the end of the day the problem with the players was aggravated by the fact that the players aren't very good. Our O-Line was terrible, our RB's were timid, NS looked lost (probably b/c he had mixed messages from 2 different OC's), our special teams looked the same as they have since 2005, and our defense was consistently tired b/c of the aforementioned problems.

Toss that in with the lack of talent (depth) on the team and yea, it wouldn't have mattered if Urban Meyer, George Halas or Vince Lombardi were the head coach of this team - we were going to suck last year no matter what.

TheBeastisback wrote: based on Scout's star averages we'd be 8th in the conference. rivals would have us 10th on that criteria. We;ve got a few good players coming in. with them, it's average for our conference. Without them it's a terrible class.

I see Beckman getting 3 years just because I don't want any more hires from Thomas. But I don't see this class getting us to a bowl game without more help and better coaching.

The low star average is due to the juco's bringing it down.  It happens.  All in all, this is a terrific class, despite the loss of Dawson and Jones.