https://mississippitoday.org/2017/09...-shot-georgia/
A lot of our three stars come from small schools and if they were playing at Madison Central or some other 6A school they would have been four stars. These recruiting services miss on a lot of guys and Mullen seems to find them.
If you "believe in recruiting stars" after last Saturday night, you need to rethink your belief system.
Good article Rick.
I'll also add that, while the state of Georgia is stock full of talent, players from that state are often times a little overrated.
Why?
Because of how the recruiting process works.
If you are college football program located anywhere in America & have a recruiting budget & limited number days in which you can be on the road & recruit, you have to make decisions that are efficient & allow you to watch as many players as possible in as few amount of days & for as little amount of money as possible.
Under that premise, where do you send your coaches:
Mississippi? In Mississippi, you have to fly into Memphis, Birmingham, GTR, or Jackson & then drive possibly an hour or more with the benefit of watching 1 maybe 2 players.
Montana ? Same as Mississippi
Dallas & Atlanta? - Direct flight from anywhere in the country, rent a car, & see 20-40 players in a week's time without having to switch hotels, get on a plane, or drive very far.
So, the result of an effort for most college football programs to be efficient & economical, leads to players from hot beds getting infinitely more college offers than similar players from more rural areas
In Georgia, a player like Brandon Bryant, McKinney, McClaurin, Dez Harris, etc may be solid 4 or high 4 star players because each one of those players would have had 50+ college offers, but, since they are from Mississippi or rural Alabama, they only had 3-5 offers. Thus they are only high 3 stars.
Offers matter & make the recruiting ranking guys more comfortable in their evaluations which makes it easier to rank guys higher.
All that to say, the talent level between Georgia & MSU is closer than the recruiting rankings make it appear
Been saying for years, Recruiting rankings (the number assigned to a recruit) is only relevant when the ranking is accurate. For every accurate one you can give me, I can give you an inaccurate one. Just pick one of our classes 2014 and further back (not fair to judge 2015-2017 yet) and look at it.
Nice article Rick. Well done.
Agreed. I think the only accurate statement you can make about it is that the top ranked classes certainly do have talent, in very general terms. But you can't 100% infer that other classes do not have talent. So it is hard to truly ever compare. Not to mention, there is no extra weight given to the more important positions (like quarterback), or roster balance, whether it be positional-wise or age-wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
You also need to use reason. Pretty sure the #2 ranked class will be better than the #32. But is there really much difference in #4 and #16, given the previous paragraph?
Great article, Rick. Great job Dan, turning our lowly one 5-star recruit team into an ass whipping team!
Recruiting rankings are like the equity you believe you have in your home. It isnt real until you see the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
I will take 2-3 ranked stars over a smart ass know it all 5 star any day. 2-3 Star players want to play and know that they have to work to
play. The work both in practice, on the field and in the classroom. They work to be character also.... They are more likely to stay out of trouble also.
Give me a kid who is willing to work than one who THINKS I owe him.
Example... there are kids at a certain college that look like high schooler's. (nothing against 16, 17, 18 year old's)
Then there are our players who have worked their butts off since graduating high school to obtain a RIPPED Picture...
These kids have worked.... Proud of each of them and they will play their hearts out for MSU and the extended family.... #HAILSTATES....
Coaching are* important.
Les, Ed, Kevin, Gus, Mike (Dubose), et al are prime examples of how talent can be wasted...
Good article. But our best player is a 5 star. Just sayin. Subjective yes. But let's no go crazy about taking 2 stars over 5. Some 5 stars work hard too! Just like some 2-3 stars don't.
And arguably our 2nd best is a 2*, which is precisely what everyone is saying. If Mullen's evaluation of a 2* shows him that he's really a true under-the-radar 3 or 4, I'll trust his judgement over 247 or Rivals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homedawg
And Rick, great article, but enough about these 2* OL... screws up our Hevasy b!tching.***
I believe in recruiting stars. I also know that recruiting stars don’t tell the entire story. But if given the choice between bama’s roster of mostly 4* and 5* and filled with guys comprising consensus #1 classes each of the past 4 years or any other roster in the country, I’d take bama’s roster.
Would you take our roster over tenn? Aggie? Lsu? Fla? OM? I would.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
Yep and that's where the truly elite players come from, the combo of talent and work ethic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homedawg
Yep an army of jackasses led by a lion is always gonna be better than an army of lions led by a jackass.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUSK
It's not important whether one "believes" in "stars", or not... What is important, is that they do exist... and they matter... it's simply a fact.
That being said, if a program has an "outlier" head coach, like YDL, less "star" talent can be mitigated to an extent.... conversely, greater "star" talent can be pissed away (eg Tennessee)...
Depends on who is coaching them honestlyQuote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
https://i.imgflip.com/uhk6d.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Homedawg