Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
- CB1
- IOL1
- OT1
- S1
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for San Diego State (2016).
2016 recruiting class — expectation versus Stars2Stats outcomes
Class medals
“Built on development, not recruiting rankings.”
S2S Class DNA
One-year metrics for this recruiting class
Recruits that contributed to program
Share who became impact players (starters, elite contributors, or NFL)
Based on only Low HS Projection → All-Conference or higher
Recruits that reached the NFL in any tier
Share with limited verified outcomes
Pipeline
Signing classes 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
The San Diego State 2016 recruiting class demonstrated a mixed bag of outcomes, reflecting varied developmental success among recruits. Despite an original class rank of 104, the re-evaluation to a rank of 51 suggests that the coaching staff effectively developed certain players, particularly those who emerged as strong contributors.
Notably, players like Kyle Spalding and Tyler Roemer rose to All Conference status, significantly surpassing expectations set by their lower initial rankings. This indicates that while the class overall had challenges, there were standout performers who capitalized on their opportunities. The presence of multiple College Starters also highlights a successful player development pipeline, aligning with the program's focus on nurturing talent.
Conversely, the presence of ranked recruits such as Dru Mathis and Forrest Hanlon, who ended with Bust outcomes, suggests that not all expectations were met. These players exemplify the risks associated with recruiting, where high hopes can lead to disappointing results, particularly when initial rankings do not translate into on-field success.
Overall, the 2016 recruiting class for San Diego State met expectations with a notable improvement in the S2S rerank from 104 to 51. The presence of several players who became College Starters and All Conference selections indicates a positive trend in player development. However, the class also included underperforming recruits, which tempered the overall success narrative. In summary, this recruiting class showcased both developmental triumphs and setbacks, ultimately reflecting a balanced outcome.