calumnus said:
4 and 5 star transfers for 2024*
1. Texas A&M 7 (0+7)
2. Ole Miss 6 (1+5)
3T Colorado 6 (0+6)
3T Florida State 6 (0+6)
5T California 5 (0+5)
5T Georgia 5 (0+5)
We are tied with Georgia for 5th with five 4 Star transfers, 2nd in the ACC, just behind Florida State.
Conclusions;
1. ACC appears to be a good move for us.
2. Cal NIL program is more than competitive.
3. Toler is a good recruiter. Cal alums recruit well for Cal.
4. Wilcox, another losing record, losing Spav, are not hurting us in the transfer portal.
We are doing FAR better with transfers than HS recruits (all 3 stars). This deserves a discussion.
I think It points to our staff being really poor HS recruiters mostly due to personality and Pacific Northwest geographic focus. We recruit Texas but are low on the totem pole there. Also, HS recruits are very focused on football and are unrealistic in their aspirations. They want big name programs and the NFL. Wilcox's losing and relative lack of success getting guys to the NFL hurts us. It may be tougher to meet Cal's admission standards out of high school than as a transfer.
Transfers are more mature. They know getting to the NFL is tough, it can be done from anywhere but you have to see the field to do it. Transfers are going to get a degree from the school they transfer to and a UC Berkeley is elite. As said above, it may be easier to enter Cal as a transfer. Low key, honest recruiters like Wilcox and his staff backed by reputable/trustworthy NIL have a comparative advantage. It doesn't matter what your regional network among HS coaches is or your scouting to the same degree. It is free agency, with players contacted through the portal and evaluated via video based on college competition.
Wilcox should reduce the number of 3 star and lower HS recruits he brings in and allocate FAR more scholarships to transfers.
1. Cal is doing an excellent job in the transfer portal
2. Sebasta is right that this is what we have to do
3. We need to take the best players we can get wherever we can find them
4. We will see, but those who are taking a wait and see approach have the right idea because fans are not used to the transfer portal rankings and what it really means for the quality of players you are getting. I'd point to basketball as a cautionary tale.
The main team rankings for the transfer portal come from On3. They do not do team rankings the way normal recruiting services do them:
Quote:
On3's Team Transfer Portal Index utilizes the On3 (P)erformance score to measure a team's production during the transfer process, compared relative against its roster and not a comparison against other schools. This proprietary algorithm determines if a school has improved its overall team talent, stayed the same, or declined in talent during the transfer window.
They are ranking based on your roster improvement, not based on the quality of your incoming class compared to others. Cal ranked #18 last year on their team rankings, but when you look at average ranking of the players in our portal class and the number of players we brought in, no traditional recruiting service would have ranked us that high. (we did have a good class, but not that good). As of now we are ranked #9 on their board and USC is ranked #23 despite having the same number of players and a slightly higher average rating. Oregon is ranked #21 and there is no way you'd rather be us than Oregon. They have 2 of the top 6 players and inside track on a third. Last year Oregon had 15 players with an average rating of 78 and that ranked lower than Cal's 18 players at 72. These ranking don't make sense in the standard recruiting world.
High School is still where the best recruits are by a wide margin. The transfer portal looks to be about halfway between the old JC and high school. Looking at On3's current team rankings, Florida State is the only blueblood in the top ten. No question, there are several guys a year that are major, major difference makers, but we aren't playing in those waters yet.
I would look at Jeremiah Hunter who was ranked #550 by 247 out of high school. He is ranked 84 in the portal. We have one guy in our class that is rated higher than Hunter. Hunter is a good player, but I didn't see a lot of devastation here when he left. He's a solid piece. To the extent we get several Hunter-level players, we will improve. But you aren't turning your program around on that the way some of you seem to think.
Big time teams are still primarily recruiting from high school. They are using the portal opportunistically and to supplement. Top PROSPECTS are going to top programs and if they are top PLAYERS, they are earning playing time and overwhelmingly staying where they are. Big time schools are not in the top 10 in the portal because they don't need or want to be. Oregon has the top QB in the portal and they probably wouldn't trade him for our whole portal class.
You said it deserves a discussion why we are doing better in the portal than with HS. I'd tell you:
1. We aren't doing quite as well as you think we are.
2. Because portal rankings are not something top teams are trying to win. They want their class to be 15-20 top high school players supplemented by the cream of the crop from the portal and a couple portal guys that fill an immediate need. the quality of the very top of the portal class is much higher than even the near top. Bluebloods dominate the top 15. When you look at who is getting players ranked close to our guys, we are definitely playing in a better pool than we are in high school recruiting, but it is not top 10.
Overall, our recruiting is still not where it needs to be. That said, it is awesome for guys who can't get a starting role at the top team to be able to move. It is awesome for late bloomers to get a chance to move up. And it is awesome that we can get some of those guys and we should and are doing a good job doing it. The realistic stretch goal that comes with that is to be able to nibble at the top 25 and try to parlay that into a reputation boost that makes us more attractive to high school players.
The portal is not the same as high school. There is grade inflation. This is like the Ayoob class when we had 5 star JC players in it. Ayoob was never a 5 star QB prospect. At best a 3 star. Other guys who were 5 stars were probably 4 stars. Meanwhile Marshawn was a 4 star high school prospect as was Jahvid Best. Frankly, we need to start seeing how the portal rankings line up with high school recruiting rankings.
