Clemson moves up somewhat if you re-rank by avg instead of total class ranking. But they are still not anything like consistently top 5. Clemson's 2013 recruiting class would not move at all if ranked by average - still at #15. Their 2014 recruits would be #15 instead of #16. 2015 class becomes #12 instead of #9. 2016 goes from #11 to #9. 2017 2017 is the big mover from #16 to #5. 2018 goes from #7 to #4.
By this criteria, they won the 2016 NC with the #15, #15, #12 and #9 classes. That's an average well outside of the top 10 again - much less the top 5. Clearly some combination of evaluation, development, coaching and scheme is more than sufficient for the #13 talent pool based on average to beat the clear and overwhelming #1. You have a better case for 2018. Average rating would be #8 (12, 11, 5 and 4) so even there we are talking top 10, not top 5 and the talent was heavily skewed to the younger players. That actually looks a lot like the talent situation in Austin now, with a bigger gap to make up with the upperclassmen.
Very common and getting more so actually. I know a dude from San Antonio who looks like Benicio del Toro and sounds like Ross Perot. Proudly refers to himself as Hickspanic.
That's mostly true but there are some really big exceptions. Clemson fielded the #9, #11, #16 and #7 classes with their most recent team. Not one top 5 class. Their 2016 championship team had the #16, #9, #9 and #11 classes. OU hasn't won it all but they've made the CFP 3 times. From 2011-2016 they didn't have a single top 10 class - much less a top 5 class. They got a #8 class in 2017 and #9 in 2018; still no top 5 classes. OU usually has ranked in the 11-20 range.
It's always better to have more talent rather than less. But the only schools that meet the consistent top 5 criteria are Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia, maybe LSU. Clemson and Oklahoma have better results than any of the last 3.
The issue for Texas isn't that recruiting classes have been "only" top 10. The program suffered from poor recruiting on both lines and then overall depletion of talent due to 2 coaching changes. Herman's 2017 transition class was ranked #25 but it's contributing as much or more to the OL as the #7 ranked 2016 class.
Broughton has some sick, sick talent. When you watch his video notice how much damage he's doing and how little use he is making of hand technique while doing that damage. He usually just puts a shoulder into the blocker then either bull rushes behind it or spins off that shoulder. It shows both how raw he is and how much better he can become with additional development. Adding just a swim and a rip move to his repertoire would increase his effectiveness quite a bit from an already high level.
1) Two ratings services rank Fillinger as a 4-star. The composite rank of 0.8884 puts him right at the top of the 3-star range. That begins at 0.8903.
2) He's a multi-sport star, which Coach Herman values very highly for demonstrated athleticism.
3) Absurd measurables - Tons of upside for Fillinger.
4) Impressive offer list - suggests that Texas isn't the only team that thinks he's a good player
5) Ranking trend - Fillinger's recruiting stock has been rising steadily this year. As more information has come in, his ranking has moved up considerably. No reason to believe he won't be a consensus 4-star soon.
6) Location - much more likely to be overlooked in Utah which isn't exactly saturated with scouts. May help to explain #5 as well.
7) Work ethic: He's a guy that will fit right into and reinforce the culture that Texas Football is building.
8 ) Staff evaluation - Demonstrated well above the norm in the past. With higher rates players still on the board this suggest to me that the staff has Fillinger rated above some of those players or at a minimum quite close in ability so taking the bird in the hand is more than worthwhile.
9) Commitment - Fillinger sought out Texas, not vice versa. He really wants to be here and the staff won't have to commit a lot of precious time and effort to keeping him in the fold. Considering how much work still has to be done to fill the 2020 class that's important. It's especially true when measured against so many teams with 16-20 commits already.
Keepers in the women's game are smaller and less athletic which effectively makes the goal larger. It seems to me that the men spend a lot more time trying to fool the defense, getting it moving side to side and then attacking against the grain to combat the keepers ability to cover so much of the goal. The women seem to spend more time creating open shots and aiming for the post or upper corner where the keeper can rarely reach. But I'm no expert on soccer. Does that seem reasonably correct?
Just rewatched the 2nd half of the final. Netherlands was pretty much done less than 25 minutes in when Lavelle scored the second goal. They basically had 3 attempts in the last 25+ minutes, none a real threat. Free kick was deflected wide, contested shot that went straight to Naher for an easy save and another that was blocked by a defender.
The Dutch had a whole ONE shot on goal in 90+ minutes. Let that sink in for a second. Did any opponent manage a shot on goal with a chance to tie the game late? Obviously not the Netherlands. England basically fell apart after the penalty save. I don't think they got a shot of any kind after that. Not the Spanish; they also only got one shot on goal. Definitely no one in group play was in that position so maybe France?