There are three components to my S&P+ team projections: recent history, returning production, and recruiting. I’ve written about the first two already, and with Signing Day(s) officially in the rear view and few high-impact recruits left uncommitted, it’s time to look at the recruiting component.

With these pieces in place, the 2019 S&P+ projections will officially go up on Feb. 11.

The purpose of including recruiting in these projections is to fill in the gaps.

Returning production tells you how much of last year’s team returns, and recruiting gives you an idea of what will replace departures.

Previously, I used a simple, two-year average for the recruiting portion. This time around, I’ve complicated things a bit. (I’m pretty good at that.) With the release of updated S&P+ ratings (changes to the formula discussed here), I took the opportunity to reassess how I make projections with recruiting rankings. I tinkered with different weighting for each year, and I tested whether a two-year sample was the most effective. It wasn’t.

Here’s the new approach, based on what appears to be the most statistically predictive:

Whereas I previously used a blend of both 247Sports Composite and Rivals ratings for each year, I am now using only the Composite.

I use a blend of point totals (how the recruiting services determine their class rankings) and per-recruit averages, since teams signing 32 guys in one year don’t automatically end up getting a long-term advantage over teams signing 23. Point totals make up about 78 percent of the formula, and per-recruit averages made up about 22 percent.

Using previous years of data as the testing ground, I found the projections work best when they are weighted as follows: this year’s recruiting class accounts for about 67 percent of the projection, last year’s accounts for 15 percent, the class from two years ago accounts for 15 percent, and the class from three years out accounts for about 3 percent. So I guess we call it a weighted four-year average now.

By now, you know the other primary Signing Day story lines: the SEC dominated (finally, some good recruiting news for the SEC), December is the new February, five-star defensive ends flowed like water, etc.

Now it’s time to look at the entire picture. Below are the 2019 class percentile (based on that blend of Composite points and averages) and weighted four-year averages for each team.

The weighted four-year rankings are what I will use in projections.

College football weighted four-year recruiting averages Team Conference 2019 class pctile 2019 Rk Wtd 4-year avg 4-year Rk Team Conference 2019 class pctile 2019 Rk Wtd 4-year avg 4-year Rk Alabama SEC 99.6% 1 99.3% 1 Georgia SEC 99.4% 2 99.3% 2 LSU SEC 97.4% 5 96.9% 3 Oklahoma Big 12 97.2% 6 96.7% 4 Ohio State Big Ten 95.1% 14 96.5% 5 Florida SEC 96.9% 7 95.8% 6 Auburn SEC 96.4% 10 95.7% 7 Texas A&M SEC 97.5% 4 95.6% 8 Texas Big 12 98.1% 3 95.4% 9 Clemson ACC 96.0% 13 95.4% 10 Penn State Big Ten 96.2% 11 95.2% 11 Michigan Big Ten 96.8% 8 95.0% 12 Oregon Pac-12 96.8% 9 93.9% 13 Notre Dame Indies 94.1% 15 93.9% 14 Florida State ACC 92.3% 17 93.8% 15 USC Pac-12 90.2% 19 93.0% 16 Tennessee SEC 96.1% 12 92.8% 17 Washington Pac-12 92.5% 16 90.9% 18 South Carolina SEC 90.8% 18 89.3% 19 Nebraska Big Ten 88.8% 20 86.9% 20 Stanford Pac-12 88.0% 21 86.7% 21 Mississippi State SEC 86.4% 23 84.2% 22 Miami-FL ACC 79.3% 26 84.0% 23 Ole Miss SEC 85.9% 24 83.0% 24 Arkansas SEC 86.8% 22 82.0% 25 Virginia Tech ACC 80.1% 25 80.0% 26 Michigan State Big Ten 76.2% 29 75.9% 27 Wisconsin Big Ten 78.9% 28 75.2% 28 North Carolina ACC 72.4% 32 74.7% 29 TCU Big 12 71.7% 33 74.0% 30 Arizona State Pac-12 73.9% 31 73.9% 31 NC State ACC 75.9% 30 72.9% 32 Kentucky SEC 68.4% 34 70.0% 33 UCLA Pac-12 62.6% 42 69.9% 34 Purdue Big Ten 79.1% 27 69.4% 35 Baylor Big 12 67.1% 35 68.9% 36 Oklahoma State Big 12 66.6% 37 67.6% 37 Missouri SEC 67.1% 36 65.8% 38 Iowa Big Ten 64.9% 40 65.1% 39 Utah Pac-12 59.4% 45 63.5% 40 Indiana Big Ten 66.6% 38 62.5% 41 Minnesota Big Ten 62.7% 41 62.1% 42 Colorado Pac-12 59.8% 44 61.3% 43 Virginia ACC 65.3% 39 61.1% 44 West Virginia Big 12 59.2% 46 60.5% 45 California Pac-12 62.6% 43 60.2% 46 Maryland Big Ten 49.3% 58 59.5% 47 Duke ACC 59.0% 47 59.5% 48 Iowa State Big 12 58.9% 48 58.4% 49 Northwestern Big Ten 58.3% 49 58.2% 50 Pittsburgh ACC 52.4% 53 57.8% 51 Georgia Tech ACC 56.7% 51 57.1% 52 Boise State MWC 57.4% 50 55.0% 53 Syracuse ACC 52.4% 52 54.5% 54 Arizona Pac-12 51.8% 55 54.2% 55 Illinois Big Ten 52.1% 54 53.2% 56 Vanderbilt SEC 49.3% 59 52.4% 57 Louisville ACC 39.7% 68 51.2% 58 Rutgers Big Ten 48.0% 61 51.0% 59 Wake Forest ACC 51.6% 56 50.6% 60 Washington State Pac-12 46.1% 63 50.1% 61 Central Florida AAC 49.1% 60 49.8% 62 Boston College ACC 49.8% 57 48.3% 63 Texas Tech Big 12 43.8% 65 47.0% 64 Kansas State Big 12 46.4% 62 47.0% 65 Oregon State Pac-12 42.2% 67 45.8% 66 Kansas Big 12 43.9% 64 44.4% 67 Memphis AAC 42.9% 66 42.7% 68 Cincinnati AAC 35.9% 72 41.3% 69 Florida Atlantic C-USA 38.0% 70 39.6% 70 Toledo MAC 37.1% 71 37.4% 71 South Florida AAC 34.2% 75 37.1% 72 SMU AAC 38.2% 69 36.2% 73 Houston AAC 31.4% 78 35.4% 74 BYU Indies 31.3% 79 35.2% 75 Marshall C-USA 34.8% 73 33.9% 76 East Carolina AAC 32.7% 77 32.0% 77 Florida International C-USA 29.6% 81 31.1% 78 Colorado State MWC 28.2% 85 31.0% 79 Southern Miss C-USA 28.6% 83 30.3% 80 Louisiana Tech C-USA 28.8% 82 28.7% 81 UL-Lafayette Sun Belt 34.8% 74 28.0% 82 Troy Sun Belt 30.5% 80 28.0% 83 Western Michigan MAC 25.2% 87 27.9% 84 North Texas C-USA 33.6% 76 27.8% 85 San Diego State MWC 22.9% 93 26.8% 86 Middle Tennessee C-USA 28.3% 84 26.0% 87 UTSA C-USA 22.6% 95 25.9% 88 Tulane AAC 23.7% 91 25.6% 89 Western Kentucky C-USA 23.3% 92 25.4% 90 UAB C-USA 27.8% 86 25.1% 91 Nevada MWC 24.3% 90 24.0% 92 Fresno State MWC 22.9% 94 24.0% 93 Temple AAC 21.5% 99 22.5% 94 Arkansas State Sun Belt 21.9% 96 22.1% 95 Miami-OH MAC 24.5% 89 22.1% 96 Utah State MWC 25.0% 88 21.6% 97 Tulsa AAC 17.3% 107 19.7% 98 Ohio MAC 21.9% 97 19.7% 99 Appalachian State Sun Belt 21.6% 98 19.5% 100 Northern Illinois MAC 17.7% 105 18.8% 101 Hawaii MWC 16.8% 108 18.6% 102 Army Indies 21.4% 100 18.6% 103 Wyoming MWC 20.2% 102 18.4% 104 Kent State MAC 21.3% 101 18.3% 105 Georgia State Sun Belt 17.7% 106 18.3% 106 UNLV MWC 18.1% 103 18.0% 107 Central Michigan MAC 16.3% 111 16.7% 108 San Jose State MWC 13.7% 118 16.0% 109 Georgia Southern Sun Belt 12.6% 122 15.9% 110 Air Force MWC 16.7% 109 15.7% 111 Buffalo MAC 17.7% 104 15.5% 112 Bowling Green MAC 9.6% 126 15.1% 113 Connecticut AAC 13.2% 120 14.9% 114 South Alabama Sun Belt 15.2% 113 14.9% 115 Ball State MAC 13.5% 119 14.8% 116 Massachusetts Indies 13.8% 117 14.8% 117 Old Dominion C-USA 16.5% 110 14.7% 118 Rice C-USA 15.6% 112 14.4% 119 Navy AAC 11.1% 125 14.1% 120 New Mexico MWC 14.7% 115 14.0% 121 Akron MAC 14.7% 114 13.1% 122 Charlotte C-USA 11.7% 124 12.4% 123 UTEP C-USA 14.6% 116 12.4% 124 Eastern Michigan MAC 11.9% 123 12.2% 125 New Mexico State Indies 12.9% 121 11.9% 126 Texas State Sun Belt 8.1% 129 11.6% 127 UL-Monroe Sun Belt 8.7% 128 11.0% 128 Coastal Carolina Sun Belt 9.5% 127 9.3% 129 Liberty Indies 6.1% 130 5.6% 130

(Note: Service academy recruiting rankings are notoriously strange. A lot of guys commit, many don’t get accepted, many change their plans, and plenty without recruiting profiles end up on the roster. So the grain-of-salt method is the way to go with Army, Navy, and Air Force.)

There are rarely a ton of changes here — the teams that recruit well tend to be the teams that always recruit well. Still, something interesting stands out right up top: while Alabama’s 2019 class was absurd and historic, head coach Nick Saban has basically only tied Georgia’s Kirby Smart in terms of recruiting since Smart, Saban’s former defensive coordinator, moved to Athens. Don’t let the Dawgs’ poor 2018 finish distract you from how loaded this team is going to be moving forward.

As it pertains to the S&P+ projections, here are some of the more important shifts that the 2019 class has brought about:

Ranking FBS conferences by average 2019 percentile rating

Okay, this probably isn’t going to tell you anything you didn’t already know, but here is each conference’s average 2019 percentile rating:

SEC (87.0 percent) Big Ten (72.4) Pac-12 (68.8) ACC (67.8) Big 12 (65.3) AAC (29.3) Conference USA (25.0) Mountain West (24.0) MAC (18.9) Sun Belt (16.6)

It is not news that the SEC leads recruiting rankings, but that is domination. Only 7.1 percentage points separate the other four power conferences’ averages, but the SEC is 14.6 percentage points ahead of the second-place Big Ten. Texas A&M had the No. 6 class in its conference per percentile rating and would have led the ACC or Pac-12. Goodness.

Dominating within your conference

Here are the teams that overachieved their own conference averages by the largest amount:

Boise State (plus-33.4 percent — 57.4 percent vs. the MWC average of 24.0) Texas (plus-32.8) Oklahoma (plus-31.9) Clemson (plus-28.2) Oregon (plus-28.0) Florida State (plus-24.5) Michigan (plus-24.5) Penn State (plus-23.8) Washington (plus-23.7) Ohio State (plus-22.8)

Most power conferences have their own lists of haves and have-nots. The Mountain West, meanwhile, has just one have. And the SEC is mostly haves — enough so that not even Alabama could outdo its conference by a particularly large amount.

Largest positive change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Power 5)

Here are the teams whose four-year percentile averages changed the most from 2018 to 2019:

Purdue (up 18.1 percentage points, from 51.3 to 69.4)

Arkansas (up 14.1, from 67.9 to 82.0)

Virginia (up 9.7, from 51.4 to 61.1)

Stanford (up 8.8, from 77.9 to 86.7)

Wisconsin (up 7.9, from 67.3 to 75.2)

Using my blend of points and averages, Purdue ended up with the No. 27 class — an outright jarring achievement, considering the Boilermakers hadn’t had a class in the top 50 since 2012.

Head coach Jeff Brohm didn’t need much time to make Purdue more respectable on the field; the Boilers have finished in the S&P+ top 50 for two straight years after averaging a No. 86 ranking over the previous seven seasons. Now that work is paying off in recruits’ living rooms as well.

And now we look at the other side: the teams that are falling.

Largest negative change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Power 5)

Louisville (down 23.5 percentage points, from 74.7 to 51.2)

UCLA (down 17.1, from 87.0 to 69.9)

Maryland (down 16.3, from 75.8 to 59.5)

Vanderbilt (down 10.8, from 63.2 to 52.4)

Miami (down 10.1, from 94.1 to 84.0)

Well this is a little bit poetic. Brohm’s team is atop the “rising” list, while the team Brohm spurned in the offseason heads up the “falling” list. Granted, Louisville still made an intriguing hire (Appalachian State’s Scott Satterfield), and he put together an intriguing staff. But there wasn’t much time to do something about the sketchy class Satterfield inherited.

Top 10 recruiting classes of 2019 (Group of 5)

Boise State (50th overall) UCF (60th) Memphis (66th) SMU (69th) FAU (70th) Toledo (71st) Cincinnati (72nd) Marshall (73rd) UL-Lafayette (74th) USF (75th)

Just as we pretty much know which teams are going to finish atop the overall rankings, we also know that Boise State and UCF are likely going to finish in the top two at the G5 level — maybe only top-four if something strange happens.

Largest positive change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Group of 5)

UL Lafayette (up 12.7 percentage points, from 15.3 to 28.0)

North Texas (up 11.1, from 16.7 to 27.8)

Memphis (up 8.4, from 34.3 to 42.7)

Miami (Ohio) (up 8.3, from 13.7 to 22.1)

Buffalo (up 7.9, from 7.6 to 15.5)

UL head coach Billy Napier moved mountains this year in recruiting. The Ragin’ Cajuns signed 23 three-star prospects, including five that had a rating of 0.8500 (basically, mid-three-star) or higher. Their class ended up 74th overall, ahead of programs like USF (75th), Houston (78th), and BYU (79th). Damn.

Largest negative change in four-year weighted recruiting rankings (Group of 5)

Cincinnati (down 13.0 percentage points, from 54.3 to 41.3)

Tulane (down 11.5, from 37.1 to 25.6)

Georgia Southern (down 10.5, from 26.5 to 15.9)

Temple (down 10.5, from 32.9 to 22.5)

WMU (down 10.4, from 38.3 to 27.9)

Cincinnati’s slide was as circumstantial as anything else — Luke Fickell only had 16 scholarships to give out in the 2019 class, which led to a class that only ranked 72nd overall, down quite a bit from recent levels of domination. On a per-recruit basis, UC’s class graded out about the same as recent classes.