From Bust to Boom, the Class of 2017 is Ahead of Schedule

Sam Ehlinger. (Will Gallagher/IT)

Sam Ehlinger. (Will Gallagher/IT)

Stars do matter. You want highly rated players on your team. A team of four stars is better than a team of three stars, but not as good as a team of five stars. The tired counter to that is, “why didn’t Mack Brown win in the 2010’s?” The response is coaching and development also matters.

But first thing is first, acquire the talent — the lifeblood of a program. As Groundhog Day has succinctly put it, talent doesn’t guarantee success but it is a requirement to have it.

Which is why many fans were dismayed by Tom Herman’s transition class. The perception from some at the time was that class would set the program back years, especially as one talented player after another left the state.

Outside of possibly having stronger relationships with Houston talent in that class, I think Herman and his staff handled the transition class capably, especially upon reflection.

Class rankings don’t matter nearly as much as most fans think they do, but overall player ratings do. The 2017 class rated .8758. Not great, but still higher than where Oklahoma State traditionally is and they still win. Because they kept the class to only 17 signees, those lower ratings are are more easily absorbed within the roster, especially when the following class comprises 27 signees with a .9216 average rating.

It would be easy to assume the class of 2018 will far outshine its predecessor, but having familiarized myself with the class of 2017 I feel comfortable saying it will have an impressive hit rate with little attrition.

A year into their eligibility, let’s take a look at each member.

You must have a premium account to access the rest of this article.