Signing day is here, Wyo Football has your info

[J-Rod]

Agree...especially DE's. I don't think the DT position is in terrible shape. We return 4 players with playing experience...two with starting experience. And, get a very good looking player off his redshirt year. Next year we only lose Appleby.

IIRC Olive left to.

[SDPokeFan]

Looks like we have a great recruiting class.....if we were in the Big Sky Conference. Everything I have read has us battling Hawaii for the last ranked class in the Mountain West.

Here's my thought on that poop. Look where Bohl is doing the majority of his recruiting: the Midwest. Where are the large population bases? On the coasts and in the South. The reason these kids aren't rated as high as others is they don't get the exposure the kids in Cali or wherever else get. This is part of the reason SJSU gets good classes is they're recruiting California kids the sources see on the daily whereas we're recruiting Midwestern kids who aren't constantly viewed by most recruiting sources. Until games are being won and facilities being built, we probably aren't going to have the most touted recruits. Accept it and move on.

Completely agree, but it's a chicken and egg argument. We can't win without good recruits, and we can't get good recruits without winning.

[ragtimejoe1]

If Bohl is as advertised regarding finding diamonds and coaching them up, we'll be successful. If not, we'll be looking for a new coach and having interesting discussions in the state.

For now, we gotta give Bohl the benefit of the doubt. Welcome these young men and look forward to the players they'll become.

[WYCowboy]

Agree...especially DE's. I don't think the DT position is in terrible shape. We return 4 players with playing experience...two with starting experience. And, get a very good looking player off his redshirt year. Next year we only lose Appleby.

IIRC Olive left to.

I'm not sure if anyone will notice.

[Cuttslam]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

[yopaulie]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

There are a lot of question about the legitamacy of the ranking sites. Evidence they are modifying rankings by the first schools offering. Alabama offers first, the 3 star goes to 4. Fcs school offers, the 3 star goes to 2. If that's the case, then rankings are more a reflection of the schools offering, than a reflection of the recruits. The ranking sites then look like geniuses - their highest ranks align with the best schools.

[WestWYOPoke]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

Wisconsin...Class rankings in Big Ten - 2011: 8th, 2012: 10th, 2013: 13th.

How did they fare 2 years after each class - 2013: 3rd (22 nationally), 2014: 2nd (13 nationally), 2015: tied for 4th (21st nationally).

Similar results could be found for Duke, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arizona state, Baylor and Ole Miss (to a lesser extent).

Yes, rankings are important. But Wisconsin is a great example of a program that brings in guys and develops them into NFL caliber players. Sure you can win with the best recruits, but it doesn't mean you absolutely can't win with "underrated" recruits.

[NebraskaCowboy]

http://www.gowyo.com/signingday/#press
For you guys whining about how poor our class is rated, go watch Coach Bohl's press conference. I think you would be amazed to find that a lot of these kids had P5 schools chasing them after they committed. So whine all you want, but these coaches are putting in the work to find talent.

[kdwrightuwyo]

Bohl can find diamonds...look at Kongbo, Wingard, and Hill. He just needs to keep them here and keep them progressing and develop all the other guys.

[calpoke25]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

There are a lot of question about the legitamacy of the ranking sites. Evidence they are modifying rankings by the first schools offering. Alabama offers first, the 3 star goes to 4. Fcs school offers, the 3 star goes to 2. If that's the case, then rankings are more a reflection of the schools offering, than a reflection of the recruits. The ranking sites then look like geniuses - their highest ranks align with the best schools.

But doesn't that also kind of make sense? If Alabama offers a kid that obviously indicates that Alabama feels the kid is worth a scholarship. If Alabama feels a kid is worth a scholarship, wouldn't it stand to reason that that kid should probably be a pretty damn good player? It's no guarantee obviously but still, it makes perfect sense to me. What better way to judge a kid than by the schools who are after him?

[NebraskaCowboy]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

There are a lot of question about the legitamacy of the ranking sites. Evidence they are modifying rankings by the first schools offering. Alabama offers first, the 3 star goes to 4. Fcs school offers, the 3 star goes to 2. If that's the case, then rankings are more a reflection of the schools offering, than a reflection of the recruits. The ranking sites then look like geniuses - their highest ranks align with the best schools.

But doesn't that also kind of make sense? If Alabama offers a kid that obviously indicates that Alabama feels the kid is worth a scholarship. If Alabama feels a kid is worth a scholarship, wouldn't it stand to reason that that kid should probably be a pretty damn good player? It's no guarantee obviously but still, it makes perfect sense to me. What better way to judge a kid than by the schools who are after him?

Well then what do you say about the likes of Carson Wentz? The dude had 0 stars, went to North Dakota State, and is going to be a top 5 pick in the draft? The thing is, there is more talent out there now than ever and not every big school is going to find them, leaving this way to rank recruits as flawed. There is a reason they play the game instead of doing it as a ranking of stars. I mean if you need more evidence, go look at this. http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... ng-ratings

[calpoke25]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

There are a lot of question about the legitamacy of the ranking sites. Evidence they are modifying rankings by the first schools offering. Alabama offers first, the 3 star goes to 4. Fcs school offers, the 3 star goes to 2. If that's the case, then rankings are more a reflection of the schools offering, than a reflection of the recruits. The ranking sites then look like geniuses - their highest ranks align with the best schools.

But doesn't that also kind of make sense? If Alabama offers a kid that obviously indicates that Alabama feels the kid is worth a scholarship. If Alabama feels a kid is worth a scholarship, wouldn't it stand to reason that that kid should probably be a pretty damn good player? It's no guarantee obviously but still, it makes perfect sense to me. What better way to judge a kid than by the schools who are after him?

Well then what do you say about the likes of Carson Wentz? The dude had 0 stars, went to North Dakota State, and is going to be a top 5 pick in the draft? The thing is, there is more talent out there now than ever and not every big school is going to find them, leaving this way to rank recruits as flawed. There is a reason they play the game instead of doing it as a ranking of stars. I mean if you need more evidence, go look at this. http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... ng-ratings

Carson Wentz is one player, and no doubt there is a plethora of talent that slips through the cracks or goes unnoticed. But football, and especially college football is a game won on an industrial scale by accumulating as much talent with your 85 scholarships as possible. It's not a game defined by single players. If recruiting rankings are meaningless why is there a pretty strong correlation between recruiting rankings and success on the field? The most successful teams win because they are able to accumulate and develop more talent than others, not because they find the most diamonds in the rough. We have to find and develop diamonds in the rough, but we also have to raise the average level of our recruits. We aren't going to find 25 Brian Hills every year, we need the other players who aren't the Brian Hills or Carson Wentzs to be serviceable MW players. That is where the game is won. Every team has stars, but not every team has the talent level across the other positions to be able to compete.

[Cuttslam]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

Wisconsin...Class rankings in Big Ten - 2011: 8th, 2012: 10th, 2013: 13th.

How did they fare 2 years after each class - 2013: 3rd (22 nationally), 2014: 2nd (13 nationally), 2015: tied for 4th (21st nationally).

Similar results could be found for Duke, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arizona state, Baylor and Ole Miss (to a lesser extent).

Yes, rankings are important. But Wisconsin is a great example of a program that brings in guys and develops them into NFL caliber players. Sure you can win with the best recruits, but it doesn't mean you absolutely can't win with "underrated" recruits.

According to 247 sports composite recruiting average from 2012-2015.

Texas A&M-9
Ole Miss-20
Baylor-26
ASU-30
Missouri -34
Wisconsin -44
Duke-58

Wyoming recruiting average is 115, last in the MWC. Boise St for comparison is sitting at 57.
If you can't see the correlation I can't help you.

[SDPokeFan]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

There are a lot of question about the legitamacy of the ranking sites. Evidence they are modifying rankings by the first schools offering. Alabama offers first, the 3 star goes to 4. Fcs school offers, the 3 star goes to 2. If that's the case, then rankings are more a reflection of the schools offering, than a reflection of the recruits. The ranking sites then look like geniuses - their highest ranks align with the best schools.

But doesn't that also kind of make sense? If Alabama offers a kid that obviously indicates that Alabama feels the kid is worth a scholarship. If Alabama feels a kid is worth a scholarship, wouldn't it stand to reason that that kid should probably be a pretty damn good player? It's no guarantee obviously but still, it makes perfect sense to me. What better way to judge a kid than by the schools who are after him?

Well then what do you say about the likes of Carson Wentz? The dude had 0 stars, went to North Dakota State, and is going to be a top 5 pick in the draft? The thing is, there is more talent out there now than ever and not every big school is going to find them, leaving this way to rank recruits as flawed. There is a reason they play the game instead of doing it as a ranking of stars. I mean if you need more evidence, go look at this. http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... ng-ratings

Carson Wentz is one player, and no doubt there is a plethora of talent that slips through the cracks or goes unnoticed. But football, and especially college football is a game won on an industrial scale by accumulating as much talent with your 85 scholarships as possible. It's not a game defined by single players. If recruiting rankings are meaningless why is there a pretty strong correlation between recruiting rankings and success on the field? The most successful teams win because they are able to accumulate and develop more talent than others, not because they find the most diamonds in the rough. We have to find and develop diamonds in the rough, but we also have to raise the average level of our recruits. We aren't going to find 25 Brian Hills every year, we need the other players who aren't the Brian Hills or Carson Wentzs to be serviceable MW players. That is where the game is won. Every team has stars, but not every team has the talent level across the other positions to be able to compete.

Exactly. Brian Hill is the exception, not the rule. There are 100 and some odd guys on a team. It takes a a little more than one player to field a great team. If you think it's just a coincidence the best teams also win the "recruiting titles," then you're just sticking your head in the sand. I guess I'm just disappointed because I thought Bohl would spring us into the top of the MWC in recruiting, or at least the top half. To me it looks like the same old, same old.

[SDPokeFan]

Scout had our class dead last in the conference, and No. 115 overall. Rivals had us 10th in the conference, and 24/7 Sports has our class 11th. Boise was the consensus top class, with CSEwe not far behind. Guess there may not actually be "a new sheriff in town."

[joshvanklomp]

https://twitter.com/ScottWrightOK/statu ... 8309028864

[yopaulie]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

There are a lot of question about the legitamacy of the ranking sites. Evidence they are modifying rankings by the first schools offering. Alabama offers first, the 3 star goes to 4. Fcs school offers, the 3 star goes to 2. If that's the case, then rankings are more a reflection of the schools offering, than a reflection of the recruits. The ranking sites then look like geniuses - their highest ranks align with the best schools.

But doesn't that also kind of make sense? If Alabama offers a kid that obviously indicates that Alabama feels the kid is worth a scholarship. If Alabama feels a kid is worth a scholarship, wouldn't it stand to reason that that kid should probably be a pretty damn good player? It's no guarantee obviously but still, it makes perfect sense to me. What better way to judge a kid than by the schools who are after him?

If the schools that are offering actually influence the rankings, you can't then use it in turn as a predictive measure to judge how well the schools did in recruiting.

[LanderPoke]

Just watched the press conference and call me crazy, but I think Bohl can do it. I bet there's more than a few players in this class.

[yopaulie]

Holy poop guys....some of you will complain just to complain. Some of our best players have been some of our worst ranked players. Andrew Wingard wasn't recruited by anyone except us and North Dakota. Just because a player doesn't have a bunch of stars next to their names you think they automatically suck. Drama queens.

Go Pokes!!

Please, rankings do matter, show me a team that ranks at the bottom of the recruiting wars that wins. .... You can't.

Wisconsin...Class rankings in Big Ten - 2011: 8th, 2012: 10th, 2013: 13th.

How did they fare 2 years after each class - 2013: 3rd (22 nationally), 2014: 2nd (13 nationally), 2015: tied for 4th (21st nationally).

Similar results could be found for Duke, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arizona state, Baylor and Ole Miss (to a lesser extent).

Yes, rankings are important. But Wisconsin is a great example of a program that brings in guys and develops them into NFL caliber players. Sure you can win with the best recruits, but it doesn't mean you absolutely can't win with "underrated" recruits.

According to 247 sports composite recruiting average from 2012-2015.

Texas A&M-9
Ole Miss-20
Baylor-26
ASU-30
Missouri -34
Wisconsin -44
Duke-58

Wyoming recruiting average is 115, last in the MWC. Boise St for comparison is sitting at 57.
If you can't see the correlation I can't help you.

My earlier point was that they are correlated, but not predictive, because the schools offering actually drive much of the ratings. Any service that ranks a player after the first offers are known, are likely biasing the ratings based on schools. I would love to see how accurate they are with rankings prior to any offers.

[BeaverPoke]

Pretending that the recruiting class rankings don't matter is so foolish.

Everyone who tries to prove how meaningless these classes are always brings up the exception to the rule. Andrew Wingard this Brett Smith that. Whatever. Look at the rest of our classes the last 5 seasons, and look at our results the last 5 years.
Look at Bama and Florida States classes and their results.