Let me start by saying this will focus primarily on D2, because that is the only level I have experience at.  From my understanding, growth is least important at high D1.  So maybe the CI recruiting class rankings are more accurate there.  An overhaul of the system is something that would be pretty neat, if done properly.  There is too much emphasis right now on JUCOs and on teams that sign 4 or more players.  I don't think it really takes into account a players potential growth, and focuses too much on their current ratings.  In the latest CI Top 32 Poll in D2 Tark, 24 of the 32 teams signed 4 or more players.

The game engine likely already has some kind of hidden player rating which factors in a recruits potential growth.  This would be how the game determines which recruits are able to "drop down" to a team in a lower division.  If the CI recruiting classes rated players more like this, the rankings would be more accurate.

If done properly, it would not only be a cool addition, it would also be helpful to new coaches.  A new coach can't help but look at those top 5 classes and try to model his recruiting approach after them.

I feel like the recruit rankings are intentionally shallow and "improper". I think it's more fun if you know you're more educated than CI.

Before potential was introduced, the rankings were better. But, even then, they treated every JUCO and walk-on as a scholarship freshman. 

I think it'd be tough to change the rankings. Is one 'good' recruit worth more than 3 'pretty good' ones? That'd be open for debate

i think its just not important enough to merit the time, but if they were going to change it to include some connection with the players growth, that would at least bring them back into the "moderately relevant" territory they lived in before potential. it still had the problems like alblack said, but it was decently good at comparing classes of all-freshman, at least. maybe you'd be #10 and it would have you at #5 but it was reasonable. now i feel like you can easily have a top 5 class and not rank at all.

Like al alluded too, the rankings were awful well before potential was ever introduced. I honestly feel it's better to just get rid of them at non DI so as not to mislead new players.

any coach that has the wherewithal to emulate the rankings i'm sure wouldn't think "oh, potential doesn't matter and I should get all JUCOs!"

I'm not sure if it would be interesting to do an experiment of recruiting only JUCOs and see how the team holds up. My guess is not good, but it might surprise me.

GD has GUESS Reports... if a user is up to it and capable, they can create much of the same. It's wildly successful.

I always wished they would rank all teams, not just the top 32...I know if you're just outside of it, it'll tell you in the email but still...I'd like to see 1-276 or 1-324 or whatever

Posted by caesari on 5/20/2013 9:00:00 PM (view original):
GD has GUESS Reports... if a user is up to it and capable, they can create much of the same. It's wildly successful.

This was my favorite part of GD.  Was really disappointed when I learned HD didn't have anything similar.

Yea I was thinking the same after this past recruiting period in Tark. I signed 3 5* guys with the average rating of those players being 798 and one being an 834 rated international and yet had the #10 recruiting class. I'm pretty sure I was the only school to sign 3 5* and there were several schools who also signed 3 guys who were rated higher (of course neither signed 3 5*), and I'm sure the reason for that is the international not being considered the same way a domestic 834 rated freshman would be considered.