Mark Lewis

2014 Early Class Rankings

by
Mark Lewis
November 16, 2013

I’m not sure if the incessant need to “rank” classes and players is actually an emotional or physical disorder, but if it is then the media certainly qualifies as the poster child. Even though signing classes are nothing more than a collection of signatures yet to produce anything other than publicity, you can find plenty of computation, positioning and anointing every time recruiters break out the NLI’s.

Ranking recruiting classes is tantamount to proclaiming a pantry full of ingredients a fantastic dish before they ever have the chance to come together in a recipe. Let’s face it, there have been plenty of things that look good in the shopping cart but just don’t deliver the anticipated results once on the plate. That could be poor cooking skills or an overhyped dish that doesn’t taste as good as it sounds. Then again it could be the ingredients themselves. They may not be as good as advertised. They may not ripen in time to deliver their best or it could be that the chemistry between the ingredients themselves just doesn’t combine for a good result. Whether we’re talking about protein and produce or speculating about signing classes, the most valid evaluation doesn’t come until you have an end product.

All too often the ranking of signing classes becomes little more than a math equation proclaiming those with the highest individually ranked athletes to be the top of the heap. The truly accurate assessment of a class has to include the roster and class needs of a program. It can’t ignore the fit of each signee in terms of a particular style of play. Consideration also has to be given to the potential of a collective class to play cohesively with each other as well as the classes in front of them or those to follow. And, without a doubt, the premium on those players who are not “marquis” signs is almost always grossly underestimated by those doing a review of a program’s recruiting efforts.

Lastly, it’s important to understand that nobody ranking these classes actually knows what the real needs and goals of a program happen to be unless they’re in house every day. It’s easy to sit back and say they need a big or immediate help at the point. That’s just stating the obvious and hardly a validation of any expertise. Knowing all the intangibles that go into their efforts is challenging, if not impossible, for someone looking in from the outside. What current players are not evolving or which ones are developing better than expected can change anticipated potential and future recruiting targets. Injuries and physical issues that may come into play long term with the current roster are not always on the table for public consumption. An interested and talented underclass prospect or a geographically regional standout at a specific position may lead to a decision to hold off on signing what may be perceived as a need this time around. Nobody wants to recruit over players or add an obstacle to their pursuit of that younger preference when the time comes.

With all that in mind, take a good objective look at recruiting classes. In today’s environment it’s also important to remember that they’re a never ending work in progress with late signings, transfers in and out as well as the possible addition of junior college players down the road. Understand that it’s actually a starting point rather than a finish line. It’s not uncommon for players to stagnate or plateau once they’ve signed their letter of intent and no longer have that dangling recruiting carrot in front of them. High school coaches love that little caveat.

Below are the current top 50 signing classes as presented by Blue Star Report, the nation’s longest running national evaluation and college showcase organization. UCLA leads the way early with an ultra-impressive five person class followed by Ohio State and first year head coach Kevin McGuff. Coming off a 2013 Final Four appearance, Louisville checks in at number three followed by Duke, UConn and Notre Dame. Texas lays claim to an impact class at seven followed by the SEC trio of South Carolina, Vanderbilt and Tennessee to wrap up the top ten. Keep in mind that two Blue Star Top 10 recruits (#2 A’Ja Wilson and #10 Kia Nurse) remain uncommitted and could reshape the upper echelon with Nurse’s looming decision and Wilson’s choice this spring.

Provided with the top 25 is a link to a signing article on that specific program’s web site or their home page if they have yet to post a release on their current signees.

26. Michigan

27. Florida State

28. Marquette

29. Clemson

30. Iowa

31. Georgia Tech

32. Oklahoma

33. Auburn

34. Iowa State

35. Washington

36. Kansas

37. Mississippi State

38. Nebraska

39. Xavier

40. DePaul

41. Arizona

42. George Washington

43. Illinois

44. Virginia Tech

45. West Virginia

46. St. Louis

47. Wyoming

48. Baylor

49. Wisconsin-Green Bay

50. Providence

Bluestar Media

2014 Early Class Rankings

1. UCLA

2. Ohio State

3. Louisville

4. Duke

5. UConn

6. Notre Dame

7. Texas

8. South Carolina

9. Vanderbilt

10. Tennessee

11. Maryland

12. St. Johns

13. Georgia

14. Purdue

15. Pitt

16. USC

17. Florida

18. Cal

19. Kentucky

20. Wake Forrest

21. Michigan State

22. Virginia

23. Stanford

24. Minnesota

25. Miami

Latest Articles

More in Mark Lewis

BlueStar

Events

BlueStar

Travel