Updated 4-year recruiting rankings for all 130: SEC dominates (2024)

There are three components to my S&P+ team projections: recent history, returning production, and recruiting. I’ve written about the first two already, and with Signing Day(s) officially in the rear view and few high-impact recruits left uncommitted, it’s time to look at the recruiting component.

With these pieces in place, the 2019 S&P+ projections will officially go up on Feb. 11.

The purpose of including recruiting in these projections is to fill in the gaps.

Returning production tells you how much of last year’s team returns, and recruiting gives you an idea of what will replace departures.

Previously, I used a simple, two-year average for the recruiting portion. This time around, I’ve complicated things a bit. (I’m pretty good at that.) With the release of updated S&P+ ratings (changes to the formula discussed here), I took the opportunity to reassess how I make projections with recruiting rankings. I tinkered with different weighting for each year, and I tested whether a two-year sample was the most effective. It wasn’t.

Here’s the new approach, based on what appears to be the most statistically predictive:

Whereas I previously used a blend of both 247Sports Composite and Rivals ratings for each year, I am now using only the Composite.
I use a blend of point totals (how the recruiting services determine their class rankings) and per-recruit averages, since teams signing 32 guys in one year don’t automatically end up getting a long-term advantage over teams signing 23. Point totals make up about 78 percent of the formula, and per-recruit averages made up about 22 percent.
Using previous years of data as the testing ground, I found the projections work best when they are weighted as follows: this year’s recruiting class accounts for about 67 percent of the projection, last year’s accounts for 15 percent, the class from two years ago accounts for 15 percent, and the class from three years out accounts for about 3 percent. So I guess we call it a weighted four-year average now.

By now, you know the other primary Signing Day story lines: the SEC dominated (finally, some good recruiting news for the SEC), December is the new February, five-star defensive ends flowed like water, etc.

Now it’s time to look at the entire picture. Below are the 2019 class percentile (based on that blend of Composite points and averages) and weighted four-year averages for each team.

The weighted four-year rankings are what I will use in projections.

College football weighted four-year recruiting averages

Team	Conference	2019 class pctile	2019 Rk	Wtd 4-year avg	4-year Rk
Team	Conference	2019 class pctile	2019 Rk	Wtd 4-year avg	4-year Rk
Alabama	SEC	99.6%	1	99.3%	1
Georgia	SEC	99.4%	2	99.3%	2
LSU	SEC	97.4%	5	96.9%	3
Oklahoma	Big 12	97.2%	6	96.7%	4
Ohio State	Big Ten	95.1%	14	96.5%	5
Florida	SEC	96.9%	7	95.8%	6
Auburn	SEC	96.4%	10	95.7%	7
Texas A&M	SEC	97.5%	4	95.6%	8
Texas	Big 12	98.1%	3	95.4%	9
Clemson	ACC	96.0%	13	95.4%	10
Penn State	Big Ten	96.2%	11	95.2%	11
Michigan	Big Ten	96.8%	8	95.0%	12
Oregon	Pac-12	96.8%	9	93.9%	13
Notre Dame	Indies	94.1%	15	93.9%	14
Florida State	ACC	92.3%	17	93.8%	15
USC	Pac-12	90.2%	19	93.0%	16
Tennessee	SEC	96.1%	12	92.8%	17
Washington	Pac-12	92.5%	16	90.9%	18
South Carolina	SEC	90.8%	18	89.3%	19
Nebraska	Big Ten	88.8%	20	86.9%	20
Stanford	Pac-12	88.0%	21	86.7%	21
Mississippi State	SEC	86.4%	23	84.2%	22
Miami-FL	ACC	79.3%	26	84.0%	23
Ole Miss	SEC	85.9%	24	83.0%	24
Arkansas	SEC	86.8%	22	82.0%	25
Virginia Tech	ACC	80.1%	25	80.0%	26
Michigan State	Big Ten	76.2%	29	75.9%	27
Wisconsin	Big Ten	78.9%	28	75.2%	28
North Carolina	ACC	72.4%	32	74.7%	29
TCU	Big 12	71.7%	33	74.0%	30
Arizona State	Pac-12	73.9%	31	73.9%	31
NC State	ACC	75.9%	30	72.9%	32
Kentucky	SEC	68.4%	34	70.0%	33
UCLA	Pac-12	62.6%	42	69.9%	34
Purdue	Big Ten	79.1%	27	69.4%	35
Baylor	Big 12	67.1%	35	68.9%	36
Oklahoma State	Big 12	66.6%	37	67.6%	37
Missouri	SEC	67.1%	36	65.8%	38
Iowa	Big Ten	64.9%	40	65.1%	39
Utah	Pac-12	59.4%	45	63.5%	40
Indiana	Big Ten	66.6%	38	62.5%	41
Minnesota	Big Ten	62.7%	41	62.1%	42
Colorado	Pac-12	59.8%	44	61.3%	43
Virginia	ACC	65.3%	39	61.1%	44
West Virginia	Big 12	59.2%	46	60.5%	45
California	Pac-12	62.6%	43	60.2%	46
Maryland	Big Ten	49.3%	58	59.5%	47
Duke	ACC	59.0%	47	59.5%	48
Iowa State	Big 12	58.9%	48	58.4%	49
Northwestern	Big Ten	58.3%	49	58.2%	50
Pittsburgh	ACC	52.4%	53	57.8%	51
Georgia Tech	ACC	56.7%	51	57.1%	52
Boise State	MWC	57.4%	50	55.0%	53
Syracuse	ACC	52.4%	52	54.5%	54
Arizona	Pac-12	51.8%	55	54.2%	55
Illinois	Big Ten	52.1%	54	53.2%	56
Vanderbilt	SEC	49.3%	59	52.4%	57
Louisville	ACC	39.7%	68	51.2%	58
Rutgers	Big Ten	48.0%	61	51.0%	59
Wake Forest	ACC	51.6%	56	50.6%	60
Washington State	Pac-12	46.1%	63	50.1%	61
Central Florida	AAC	49.1%	60	49.8%	62
Boston College	ACC	49.8%	57	48.3%	63
Texas Tech	Big 12	43.8%	65	47.0%	64
Kansas State	Big 12	46.4%	62	47.0%	65
Oregon State	Pac-12	42.2%	67	45.8%	66
Kansas	Big 12	43.9%	64	44.4%	67
Memphis	AAC	42.9%	66	42.7%	68
Cincinnati	AAC	35.9%	72	41.3%	69
Florida Atlantic	C-USA	38.0%	70	39.6%	70
Toledo	MAC	37.1%	71	37.4%	71
South Florida	AAC	34.2%	75	37.1%	72
SMU	AAC	38.2%	69	36.2%	73
Houston	AAC	31.4%	78	35.4%	74
BYU	Indies	31.3%	79	35.2%	75
Marshall	C-USA	34.8%	73	33.9%	76
East Carolina	AAC	32.7%	77	32.0%	77
Florida International	C-USA	29.6%	81	31.1%	78
Colorado State	MWC	28.2%	85	31.0%	79
Southern Miss	C-USA	28.6%	83	30.3%	80
Louisiana Tech	C-USA	28.8%	82	28.7%	81
UL-Lafayette	Sun Belt	34.8%	74	28.0%	82
Troy	Sun Belt	30.5%	80	28.0%	83
Western Michigan	MAC	25.2%	87	27.9%	84
North Texas	C-USA	33.6%	76	27.8%	85
San Diego State	MWC	22.9%	93	26.8%	86
Middle Tennessee	C-USA	28.3%	84	26.0%	87
UTSA	C-USA	22.6%	95	25.9%	88
Tulane	AAC	23.7%	91	25.6%	89
Western Kentucky	C-USA	23.3%	92	25.4%	90
UAB	C-USA	27.8%	86	25.1%	91
Nevada	MWC	24.3%	90	24.0%	92
Fresno State	MWC	22.9%	94	24.0%	93
Temple	AAC	21.5%	99	22.5%	94
Arkansas State	Sun Belt	21.9%	96	22.1%	95
Miami-OH	MAC	24.5%	89	22.1%	96
Utah State	MWC	25.0%	88	21.6%	97
Tulsa	AAC	17.3%	107	19.7%	98
Ohio	MAC	21.9%	97	19.7%	99
Appalachian State	Sun Belt	21.6%	98	19.5%	100
Northern Illinois	MAC	17.7%	105	18.8%	101
Hawaii	MWC	16.8%	108	18.6%	102
Army	Indies	21.4%	100	18.6%	103
Wyoming	MWC	20.2%	102	18.4%	104
Kent State	MAC	21.3%	101	18.3%	105
Georgia State	Sun Belt	17.7%	106	18.3%	106
UNLV	MWC	18.1%	103	18.0%	107
Central Michigan	MAC	16.3%	111	16.7%	108
San Jose State	MWC	13.7%	118	16.0%	109
Georgia Southern	Sun Belt	12.6%	122	15.9%	110
Air Force	MWC	16.7%	109	15.7%	111
Buffalo	MAC	17.7%	104	15.5%	112
Bowling Green	MAC	9.6%	126	15.1%	113
Connecticut	AAC	13.2%	120	14.9%	114
South Alabama	Sun Belt	15.2%	113	14.9%	115
Ball State	MAC	13.5%	119	14.8%	116
Massachusetts	Indies	13.8%	117	14.8%	117
Old Dominion	C-USA	16.5%	110	14.7%	118
Rice	C-USA	15.6%	112	14.4%	119
Navy	AAC	11.1%	125	14.1%	120
New Mexico	MWC	14.7%	115	14.0%	121
Akron	MAC	14.7%	114	13.1%	122
Charlotte	C-USA	11.7%	124	12.4%	123
UTEP	C-USA	14.6%	116	12.4%	124
Eastern Michigan	MAC	11.9%	123	12.2%	125
New Mexico State	Indies	12.9%	121	11.9%	126
Texas State	Sun Belt	8.1%	129	11.6%	127
UL-Monroe	Sun Belt	8.7%	128	11.0%	128
Coastal Carolina	Sun Belt	9.5%	127	9.3%	129
Liberty	Indies	6.1%	130	5.6%	130

(Note: Service academy recruiting rankings are notoriously strange. A lot of guys commit, many don’t get accepted, many change their plans, and plenty without recruiting profiles end up on the roster. So the grain-of-salt method is the way to go with Army, Navy, and Air Force.)

There are rarely a ton of changes here — the teams that recruit well tend to be the teams that always recruit well. Still, something interesting stands out right up top: while Alabama’s 2019 class was absurd and historic, head coach Nick Saban has basically only tied Georgia’s Kirby Smart in terms of recruiting since Smart, Saban’s former defensive coordinator, moved to Athens. Don’t let the Dawgs’ poor 2018 finish distract you from how loaded this team is going to be moving forward.

As it pertains to the S&P+ projections, here are some of the more important shifts that the 2019 class has brought about:

Ranking FBS conferences by average 2019 percentile rating

Okay, this probably isn’t going to tell you anything you didn’t already know, but here is each conference’s average 2019 percentile rating:

SEC (87.0 percent)
Big Ten (72.4)
Pac-12 (68.8)
ACC (67.8)
Big 12 (65.3)
AAC (29.3)
Conference USA (25.0)
Mountain West (24.0)
MAC (18.9)
Sun Belt (16.6)

It is not news that the SEC leads recruiting rankings, but that is domination. Only 7.1 percentage points separate the other four power conferences’ averages, but the SEC is 14.6 percentage points ahead of the second-place Big Ten. Texas A&M had the No. 6 class in its conference per percentile rating and would have led the ACC or Pac-12. Goodness.

Dominating within your conference

Here are the teams that overachieved their own conference averages by the largest amount:

Boise State (plus-33.4 percent — 57.4 percent vs. the MWC average of 24.0)
Texas (plus-32.8)
Oklahoma (plus-31.9)
Clemson (plus-28.2)
Oregon (plus-28.0)
Florida State (plus-24.5)
Michigan (plus-24.5)
Penn State (plus-23.8)
Washington (plus-23.7)
Ohio State (plus-22.8)

Most power conferences have their own lists of haves and have-nots. The Mountain West, meanwhile, has just one have. And the SEC is mostly haves — enough so that not even Alabama could outdo its conference by a particularly large amount.

Largest positive change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Power 5)

Updated 4-year recruiting rankings for all 130: SEC dominates (1)

Here are the teams whose four-year percentile averages changed the most from 2018 to 2019:

Purdue (up 18.1 percentage points, from 51.3 to 69.4)
Arkansas (up 14.1, from 67.9 to 82.0)
Virginia (up 9.7, from 51.4 to 61.1)
Stanford (up 8.8, from 77.9 to 86.7)
Wisconsin (up 7.9, from 67.3 to 75.2)

Using my blend of points and averages, Purdue ended up with the No. 27 class — an outright jarring achievement, considering the Boilermakers hadn’t had a class in the top 50 since 2012.

Head coach Jeff Brohm didn’t need much time to make Purdue more respectable on the field; the Boilers have finished in the S&P+ top 50 for two straight years after averaging a No. 86 ranking over the previous seven seasons. Now that work is paying off in recruits’ living rooms as well.

And now we look at the other side: the teams that are falling.

Largest negative change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Power 5)

Updated 4-year recruiting rankings for all 130: SEC dominates (2)

Louisville (down 23.5 percentage points, from 74.7 to 51.2)
UCLA (down 17.1, from 87.0 to 69.9)
Maryland (down 16.3, from 75.8 to 59.5)
Vanderbilt (down 10.8, from 63.2 to 52.4)
Miami (down 10.1, from 94.1 to 84.0)

Well this is a little bit poetic. Brohm’s team is atop the “rising” list, while the team Brohm spurned in the offseason heads up the “falling” list. Granted, Louisville still made an intriguing hire (Appalachian State’s Scott Satterfield), and he put together an intriguing staff. But there wasn’t much time to do something about the sketchy class Satterfield inherited.

Top 10 recruiting classes of 2019 (Group of 5)

Updated 4-year recruiting rankings for all 130: SEC dominates (3)

Boise State (50th overall)
UCF (60th)
Memphis (66th)
SMU (69th)
FAU (70th)
Toledo (71st)
Cincinnati (72nd)
Marshall (73rd)
UL-Lafayette (74th)
USF (75th)

Just as we pretty much know which teams are going to finish atop the overall rankings, we also know that Boise State and UCF are likely going to finish in the top two at the G5 level — maybe only top-four if something strange happens.

Largest positive change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Group of 5)

UL Lafayette (up 12.7 percentage points, from 15.3 to 28.0)
North Texas (up 11.1, from 16.7 to 27.8)
Memphis (up 8.4, from 34.3 to 42.7)
Miami (Ohio) (up 8.3, from 13.7 to 22.1)
Buffalo (up 7.9, from 7.6 to 15.5)

UL head coach Billy Napier moved mountains this year in recruiting. The Ragin’ Cajuns signed 23 three-star prospects, including five that had a rating of 0.8500 (basically, mid-three-star) or higher. Their class ended up 74th overall, ahead of programs like USF (75th), Houston (78th), and BYU (79th). Damn.

Largest negative change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Group of 5)

Cincinnati (down 13.0 percentage points, from 54.3 to 41.3)
Tulane (down 11.5, from 37.1 to 25.6)
Georgia Southern (down 10.5, from 26.5 to 15.9)
Temple (down 10.5, from 32.9 to 22.5)
WMU (down 10.4, from 38.3 to 27.9)

Cincinnati’s slide was as circ*mstantial as anything else — Luke Fickell only had 16 scholarships to give out in the 2019 class, which led to a class that only ranked 72nd overall, down quite a bit from recent levels of domination. On a per-recruit basis, UC’s class graded out about the same as recent classes.