This makes too much sense
Printable View
Speaking of fishing in the deep water...appears we've offered OLB Avery Huff from STA. Any insight on this offer?
https://twitter.com/Averyhuff9/statu...35434531819520
https://247sports.com/college/missis...hool-115029095
Looks like Bama is moving in on Pickering.
I get it. Because it's a kid that committed to OM you want there to be some conspiracy around his ranking. But the reality is this exact situation has happened on our end several times.
MSU/OM get a commit from an unranked kid. Paul/David submit their ranking request and suggesting to the national guys, they get an initial ranking usually within 24 hours.
85-88 is the wheelhouse for where these kids are usually ranked upon initial review.
Rankings are based on money, not talent. Plus, those guys can’t determine talent any better than the average fan. I mean, they let people like Shurbutt rank guys. It’s all a scam to get your $10+ a month. Not a lot different than that bullshit NSR recruiting crap.
I agree to a degree in that is how it "should be" but the fact of the matter is people like Ole Miss use the rankings to rally support even after they go 2-10 and that perception helps their program. And I guarantee you that if our rankings were good on paper it would help our perception and program too. It's just that MSU hasn't really gotten into it. Mainly because of Dan.
Exactly. And if you go look at recruiting rankings there is absolutely a correlation to performance and rankings. I think people just like to say they don?t matter to try and justify where we have finished in the past.
Now have we overperformed against our recruiting ranking? Probably so. But the data very clearly shows that unless you are Top 10 in recruiting at least every other year with a consistent Top 15, you aren?t going to make the playoffs. We have gotten close, but more talent would help. What would happen if we pulled in a kid like Simmons every year? Can?t tell me we wouldn?t be better and have more chances to win games we typically lose. If you?ve got better players, you win more frequently plain and simple. Coaching does matter, but very rarely anymore do you see teams with a lot of talent have awful coaching. They go hand in hand more than they ever have before.
I think there's a correlation but I also think the correlation comes from the teams then rankings not the other way around. The top 50-100 kids are easy to spot they stick out like a sore thumb. After that it gets tough. Well what's the easiest way to rank them well who are the top schools offering/committing? Oh he has a legit Bama offer? Move him up if he's good enough for Saban he has to be a top prospect. Ohio St took his commitment? Move him up because Urban isn't just taking anybody. People have to remember recruiting sites are entertainment these aren't "experts". If they were they would already be on Saban staff. You're paying for entertainment not exact rankings.
Nah. Outside the top handful of teams, nobody knows where the rest rank in recruiting. You don't see FL or LSU beating their chests for finishing in the teens in recruiting. Recruiting rankings are fools gold. Hell, AL isn't even happy with a top 10 class. It's not the rankings that help teams. It's the marketing of those teams as a whole and the school. You get way more bump out of winning games than recruiting rankings.
2019 Early Big board coming soon. Will get up with my guys and contacts before spring ball cranks up.
True, but they go hand in hand. If you don't have the top recruits, it's virtually impossible to win on a consistent basis. You can have a couple years or in a one game setting like UCF you can beat a big time team. But consistently the best teams have the best talent and that's why they win games.