While I have commented before that the recruiting rankings aren't strongly correlated to on the field results, here is some historical data:
Average Rating of players by 247Sports, Composite:
2010 78.48, 101.59 points, 12th in MAC
2011 74.46, 67.8 points, 6th in MAC
2012 78.13, 116.72 points, 5th in MAC
2013 77.17, 96.79 points, 10th in MAC
2014 76.52, 105.12 points, 6th in MAC
2015 78.10, 128.68 points, 5th in MAC
2016 77.88, 109.82 points, 8th in MAC
2017 78.81, 120.83 points, 8th in MAC
2018 78.63, 110.84 points, 10th in MAC
2019 81.08, 142.11 points, 4th in MAC

Another measure that I use sometimes, because it isn't subject to grade inflation is the average number of other offers that players had:
2010 .91
2011 2.62
2012 2.64
2013 2.17
2014 2.28
2015 2.31
2016 3.18
2017 4.95
2018 2.65
2019 5.31

By either measure, this was an outstanding class, the best one yet. Note that some classes look better on paper than they end up being, such as 2015, which had several players not end up being eligible.

Very interesting. Thanks for compiling that data.

Whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, this data can be spun to fit your view of the world. Which of these is the correct interpretation, or are all of them correct? Or, is something else the real story?

1. Solich's greatest failing is in recruiting, and his classes are normally middle to bottom of the MAC.
2. Athens has been difficult to recruit to, so it has taken a far longer time that you would expect to get recruiting to improve
3. Solich has built a reputation for treating players well, and fairly, and coaching them up, but also seeing that they get an education, and as a result, recruiting has slowly improved.
3. Starting with the opening of the IPF, recruiting began to improve.
4. The IPF didn't make that much difference in recruiting.
5. Starting with the announcement of the Academic Center, recruiting began to improve.
6. This was a good class, but long term, the Academic Center will have little impact on recruiting.
7. Despite working with bottom half of the MAC quality recruits, Solich was a good enough coach to compete for the top of the MAC.
8. Solich is a better judge of recruits than the recruiting services, so, even though the classes were rated poorly, they actually were good, which is why Ohio was able to compete for the top of the MAC.
9. While Ohio wasn't able to win a MACC with bottom of the MAC talent, if they continue recruiting at the level of this year, they surely will.
10. Even though this class was ranked a little better, it's still not the best in the MAC, so there is no MACC in Ohio's future.
11. Ohio's 2017 and 2019 classes are special, based on competitive offers, and they will lead Ohio to new highs.
12. This data is all irrelevant, and means nothing. It's only value is giving us something pointless to argue about in the off season.

Happy New Year, everyone. ;)

I liked 3 (both of them), 8, 9 and 11.

You are indeed a great asset to BA, L.C.

From the fan perspective, I noticed a different level of athlete on the field around 2007-2008. It was independent of any trends in recruiting classes so I would attribute it to development, particularly the staff's reputation to develop lineman. While the staff might not have dominated the overall MAC rankings it has done a nice job compared to MAC competition with regard to in-state lineman recruiting. L.C. I would look at the offers of the lineman signed at Ohio compared to BG, Kent, Miami and Akron since 2005. The program was built on a consistent line edge and physical play.

Yeah I can remember recruiting classes of the late 90s where we would draft 6’6”-240 pound offensive tackles and hope they would “grow into” a decent OL.

I’d like you to find me how many 6’6” OL types Jim Grobe ever signed!. And you do not “draft” players in college

As I pointed out in another thread, this group of offensive linemen is far lighter than recent classes. Excluding JUCO players:
2015: Pleasants, Grimes 305,319 avg=312
2016: Fernandez, Trotter, Notestine, Beadle 300,309,323,320, avg=313
2017: Tusha, Jackson, Meservy, Kitrell 305,285,280,280 avg=288
2018: Ramer, Danneker, Gilliland 300,315,305 avg=308
2019: Vannest, Ambergey, Atkinson, Oakes, Aronokhale 295,280,273,260,275 avg=277

It also averages about 1.5 inches shorter than recent classes(height in inches):
2015: Pleasants, Grimes 78,77 avg=77.5
2016: Fernandez, Trotter, Notestine, Beadle 76,77,76,77 avg=76.5
2017: Tusha, Jackson, Meservy, Kitrell 77,76,76,76 avg=76.25
2018: Ramer, Danneker, Gilliland 77,76,78 avg=77.0
2019: Vannest, Ambergey, Atkinson, Oakes, Aronokhale 77,77,75,74,75 avg=75.6

On the other hand, they are rated much higher
2015: Pleasants, Grimes .7815,.7631 avg=.7724
2016: Fernandez, Trotter, Notestine, Beadle .791,.804,.779,.760 avg=.784
2017: Tusha, Jackson, Meservy, Kitrell .803,.790,.753,.815 avg=.788
2018: Ramer, Danneker, Gilliland .790,.780,.780 avg=.783
2019: Vannest, Ambergey, Atkinson, Oakes, Aronokhale .793,.827,.84,.76,.831 avg=.810

And they had more other offers:
2015: Pleasants, Grimes 2,1 avg= 1.0
2016: Fernandez, Trotter, Notestine, Beadle 10,1,1,0 avg=3.0
2017: Tusha, Jackson, Meservy, Kitrell 9,4,0,4 avg=4.25
2018: Ramer, Danneker, Gilliland 2,2,0 avg=1.3
2019: Vannest, Ambergey, Atkinson, Oakes, Aronokhale 6,13,1,0,5 avg=5.0

What does it all mean?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess it means we'll just have to wait and see how they actually play.

As always, great info from LC. My view is the same one I have had for quite a few years now. This staff has not been able to recruit enough good players and get them on the field at the same time to win a MACC in 14 years.

I believe this was the year that could have been. Just a few more points and we beat UC, NIU and Miami. That would have made this a really really special year. Instead, it was one more good/very good one!

I assume the academic center is helping too.

This year, Casper, they did have the recruiting class you have long wanted. It's almost all 3-star players, and players with lots of other offers. So, now they showed it can be done, they need to repeat it next year, and the year after, and we can see the program continue to improve from here.