Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: If you believe in recruiting stars (I don't), then State's in trouble Saturday

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    3,828
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by confucius say View Post
    Would you take our roster over tenn? Aggie? Lsu? Fla? OM? I would.
    OM doesn’t really have more talent than we do even by star ratings now that the nkemdiche/treadwell/tunsil class is gone. Tennessee, a&m, and Florida haven’t recruited significantly better than us over the previous 4-5 years and are definitely within some reasonable range of volatility where 1 or 2 guys underperforming/overperforming can swing the perception of the class.

    If we could keep our QB and coaching staff (and assuming lsu’s front 7 is healthy), I’d swap the rest of the roster with lsu’s. Fortunately for us, QB, coaching, and lsu’s lack of health in the front 7 let us dominate that game. A bad QB and a shit head coach can definitely sink an otherwise great roster.

    Right now the sec recruiting talent can be tiered:
    Tier 1: bama
    Tier 2: lsu, uga
    Tier 3: a&m, Florida, auburn, Tennessee, usce, MSU, OM (pre-NCAA trouble at least)
    Tier 4: Arkansas, Kentucky
    Tier 5: Missouri, vandy

    The problem is so many of y’all look at the trees you miss the forest. Is the difference between a 88 and a 89 rated player significant? Nope. If your coach prefers the 88 rated guy then let the coach get the one he likes better with complaining about choosing the lower rated guy, even if it slightly hurts your recruiting rankings. A 2* turning into a stud doesn’t mean the recruiting rankings are bullshit, it means that they aren’t perfect. That’s just how it is.

    But you literally can’t look at the meta-data and tell me there’s no difference in signing a bunch of 4-5* players and a bunch of 2-3* players. The math proves that 4-5* players become college starters, all conference players, and nfl draft picks at a much higher rate than 3* players, and likewise 3* guys succeed at a higher rate than 2* guys. That’s just a fact.

    Now can a coach with superior player evaluation and development skills nail the right 2-3* guys at a higher rate than average? Sure they can, and some have made a great career out of it. Mullen, ferentz, gundy, Beamer, snyder, whoever coaches Wisconsin (since it doesn’t seem to matter), etc. have done it. But most of those guys also hit a ceiling and seem to come up 1 or 2 players short when they have a shot at making a natty run. Not that a 10 or 11 win season isn’t awesome, but it’s also not an undefeated season or playing for a natty.

    Our starters may be on par with bama or usc or Ohio st or Oklahoma or Clemson, but what happens if Simmons gets hurt? We don’t have a stud waiting behind him to pick up the slack. It will really hurt our defense. Bama is more prepared to lose a guy like that and keep rolling because behind their starters they have another 4 or 5 * ready to get his shot. We have a development 3* guy not ready to take on a full time role.

    This is rambling because it’s not a black and white issue and there’s lots that go into discussing recruiting rankings besides claiming they mean everything or they mean nothing. But simply go look at the teams that have played for the national title in the last decade. Almost every one of them averaged a top 10 recruiting ranking the previous 4 season cycles. The ones that didn’t were still top 15 and had a transcendent QB (cam, mariota, Watson) and/or coach ahead of his time (chip Kelly). I’m not saying it’s impossible to win a natty with our talent, but our margin of error is very very thin. We’d need to avoid injuries, fitz would need to continue to develop into a heisman contender, and Mullen would need to resist the urge to tuck his wiener in upcoming big games, and then we’d have to still execute at a high level.

    So yeah, stars matter. QB, coaching staff, and health are the 3 things that can lead to overachieving or underachieving. Fortunately we have 2 of the 3 right now that are key to overachieving.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Turfdawg67's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    4,860
    vCash
    3100
    Wow... could not make it all the way through that. You lost me at... we recruit as well as Auburn, UF, TA&M and UT?!?!? LOLZ!

  3. #23
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgs View Post
    OM doesn’t really have more talent than we do even by star ratings now that the nkemdiche/treadwell/tunsil class is gone. Tennessee, a&m, and Florida haven’t recruited significantly better than us over the previous 4-5 years and are definitely within some reasonable range of volatility where 1 or 2 guys underperforming/overperforming can swing the perception of the class.

    If we could keep our QB and coaching staff (and assuming lsu’s front 7 is healthy), I’d swap the rest of the roster with lsu’s. Fortunately for us, QB, coaching, and lsu’s lack of health in the front 7 let us dominate that game. A bad QB and a shit head coach can definitely sink an otherwise great roster.

    Right now the sec recruiting talent can be tiered:
    Tier 1: bama
    Tier 2: lsu, uga
    Tier 3: a&m, Florida, auburn, Tennessee, usce, MSU, OM (pre-NCAA trouble at least)
    Tier 4: Arkansas, Kentucky
    Tier 5: Missouri, vandy

    The problem is so many of y’all look at the trees you miss the forest. Is the difference between a 88 and a 89 rated player significant? Nope. If your coach prefers the 88 rated guy then let the coach get the one he likes better with complaining about choosing the lower rated guy, even if it slightly hurts your recruiting rankings. A 2* turning into a stud doesn’t mean the recruiting rankings are bullshit, it means that they aren’t perfect. That’s just how it is.

    But you literally can’t look at the meta-data and tell me there’s no difference in signing a bunch of 4-5* players and a bunch of 2-3* players. The math proves that 4-5* players become college starters, all conference players, and nfl draft picks at a much higher rate than 3* players, and likewise 3* guys succeed at a higher rate than 2* guys. That’s just a fact.

    Now can a coach with superior player evaluation and development skills nail the right 2-3* guys at a higher rate than average? Sure they can, and some have made a great career out of it. Mullen, ferentz, gundy, Beamer, snyder, whoever coaches Wisconsin (since it doesn’t seem to matter), etc. have done it. But most of those guys also hit a ceiling and seem to come up 1 or 2 players short when they have a shot at making a natty run. Not that a 10 or 11 win season isn’t awesome, but it’s also not an undefeated season or playing for a natty.

    Our starters may be on par with bama or usc or Ohio st or Oklahoma or Clemson, but what happens if Simmons gets hurt? We don’t have a stud waiting behind him to pick up the slack. It will really hurt our defense. Bama is more prepared to lose a guy like that and keep rolling because behind their starters they have another 4 or 5 * ready to get his shot. We have a development 3* guy not ready to take on a full time role.

    This is rambling because it’s not a black and white issue and there’s lots that go into discussing recruiting rankings besides claiming they mean everything or they mean nothing. But simply go look at the teams that have played for the national title in the last decade. Almost every one of them averaged a top 10 recruiting ranking the previous 4 season cycles. The ones that didn’t were still top 15 and had a transcendent QB (cam, mariota, Watson) and/or coach ahead of his time (chip Kelly). I’m not saying it’s impossible to win a natty with our talent, but our margin of error is very very thin. We’d need to avoid injuries, fitz would need to continue to develop into a heisman contender, and Mullen would need to resist the urge to tuck his wiener in upcoming big games, and then we’d have to still execute at a high level.

    So yeah, stars matter. QB, coaching staff, and health are the 3 things that can lead to overachieving or underachieving. Fortunately we have 2 of the 3 right now that are key to overachieving.
    there's a lot of truth in this^....

    I bothered to run a few numbers:

    I used SEC recruiting ranks (per 247) for years 2008-2014 and compared them to SEC wins 2010-2016 (A&M/Mizzou are not included due to lack in sample size)...

    here are some of the notable discoveries:
    1. The top 5 ranking teams in recruiting (UA, AU, LSU, UF, UGA) were also the top 5 teams in SEC wins.
    2. The 2 worst ranked teams in recruiting (UK & Vandy) had the fewest SEC wins.
    3. Of the remaining 5 teams, 3 (SC, OM, ARK) fell within 1 spot re: Stars Ranking vs SEC wins.
    4. The remaining 2 teams (MSU & UT) were the only significant outliers.
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,866
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgs View Post
    OM doesn’t really have more talent than we do even by star ratings now that the nkemdiche/treadwell/tunsil class is gone. Tennessee, a&m, and Florida haven’t recruited significantly better than us over the previous 4-5 years and are definitely within some reasonable range of volatility where 1 or 2 guys underperforming/overperforming can swing the perception of the class.

    If we could keep our QB and coaching staff (and assuming lsu’s front 7 is healthy), I’d swap the rest of the roster with lsu’s. Fortunately for us, QB, coaching, and lsu’s lack of health in the front 7 let us dominate that game. A bad QB and a shit head coach can definitely sink an otherwise great roster.

    Right now the sec recruiting talent can be tiered:
    Tier 1: bama
    Tier 2: lsu, uga
    Tier 3: a&m, Florida, auburn, Tennessee, usce, MSU, OM (pre-NCAA trouble at least)
    Tier 4: Arkansas, Kentucky
    Tier 5: Missouri, vandy

    The problem is so many of y’all look at the trees you miss the forest. Is the difference between a 88 and a 89 rated player significant? Nope. If your coach prefers the 88 rated guy then let the coach get the one he likes better with complaining about choosing the lower rated guy, even if it slightly hurts your recruiting rankings. A 2* turning into a stud doesn’t mean the recruiting rankings are bullshit, it means that they aren’t perfect. That’s just how it is.

    But you literally can’t look at the meta-data and tell me there’s no difference in signing a bunch of 4-5* players and a bunch of 2-3* players. The math proves that 4-5* players become college starters, all conference players, and nfl draft picks at a much higher rate than 3* players, and likewise 3* guys succeed at a higher rate than 2* guys. That’s just a fact.

    Now can a coach with superior player evaluation and development skills nail the right 2-3* guys at a higher rate than average? Sure they can, and some have made a great career out of it. Mullen, ferentz, gundy, Beamer, snyder, whoever coaches Wisconsin (since it doesn’t seem to matter), etc. have done it. But most of those guys also hit a ceiling and seem to come up 1 or 2 players short when they have a shot at making a natty run. Not that a 10 or 11 win season isn’t awesome, but it’s also not an undefeated season or playing for a natty.

    Our starters may be on par with bama or usc or Ohio st or Oklahoma or Clemson, but what happens if Simmons gets hurt? We don’t have a stud waiting behind him to pick up the slack. It will really hurt our defense. Bama is more prepared to lose a guy like that and keep rolling because behind their starters they have another 4 or 5 * ready to get his shot. We have a development 3* guy not ready to take on a full time role.

    This is rambling because it’s not a black and white issue and there’s lots that go into discussing recruiting rankings besides claiming they mean everything or they mean nothing. But simply go look at the teams that have played for the national title in the last decade. Almost every one of them averaged a top 10 recruiting ranking the previous 4 season cycles. The ones that didn’t were still top 15 and had a transcendent QB (cam, mariota, Watson) and/or coach ahead of his time (chip Kelly). I’m not saying it’s impossible to win a natty with our talent, but our margin of error is very very thin. We’d need to avoid injuries, fitz would need to continue to develop into a heisman contender, and Mullen would need to resist the urge to tuck his wiener in upcoming big games, and then we’d have to still execute at a high level.

    So yeah, stars matter. QB, coaching staff, and health are the 3 things that can lead to overachieving or underachieving. Fortunately we have 2 of the 3 right now that are key to overachieving.
    TL/DR.

    1. According to rankings, We are not in same tier as fla, tenn, auburn, or Aggie. More like ark. Look at rankings. However, we do have more talent than all four. Which proves my point that the number assigned to a player is irrelevant unless it's accurate, and it's inaccurate at least 50% of the time.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,866
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    there's a lot of truth in this^....

    I bothered to run a few numbers:

    I used SEC recruiting ranks (per 247) for years 2008-2014 and compared them to SEC wins 2010-2016 (A&M/Mizzou are not included due to lack in sample size)...

    here are some of the notable discoveries:
    1. The top 5 ranking teams in recruiting (UA, AU, LSU, UF, UGA) were also the top 5 teams in SEC wins.
    2. The 2 worst ranked teams in recruiting (UK & Vandy) had the fewest SEC wins.
    3. Of the remaining 5 teams, 3 (SC, OM, ARK) fell within 1 spot re: Stars Ranking vs SEC wins.
    4. The remaining 2 teams (MSU & UT) were the only significant outliers.
    We are second in the west in wins the last 3.5 seasons and are sixth or seventh by a significant margin in recruiting rankings.

    Why? Bc 81 fitz should have been a 95. 79 Deion Calhoun should have been a 90. 80 taveze Calhoun should have been a 90. 85 dak should have been a 95. 80 Preston smith should have been a 92. I could literally do this all night but you get the picture.

  6. #26
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by confucius say View Post
    TL/DR.

    1. According to rankings, We are not in same tier as fla, tenn, auburn, or Aggie. More like ark. Look at rankings. However, we do have more talent than all four. Which proves my point that the number assigned to a player is irrelevant unless it's accurate, and it's inaccurate at least 50% of the time.
    I'd go with more Tiers...
    (based on 247 2017 Team Talent)

    Alabama

    Georgia

    LSU
    AU

    TN
    A&M
    FLA
    OM

    ARK
    MSU
    SC
    KY

    Mizzou
    Vandy
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  7. #27
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by confucius say View Post
    We are second in the west in wins the last 3.5 seasons and are sixth or seventh by a significant margin in recruiting rankings.

    Why? Bc 81 fitz should have been a 95. 79 Deion Calhoun should have been a 90. 80 taveze Calhoun should have been a 90. 85 dak should have been a 95. 80 Preston smith should have been a 92. I could literally do this all night but you get the picture.


    maybe Mullen just does an exceptional job at finding and developing talent that others miss and UT sucks at it.... I admit MSU is definitely an "outlier"...

    regardless, data is data....

    note of correction: For the 08-14 recruiting period, MSU was 10th in recruiting and for the 10-16 seasons, MSU was 7th (4th in the SECW) in SEC wins.
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,866
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    I'd go with more Tiers...
    (based on 247 2017 Team Talent)

    Alabama

    Georgia

    LSU
    AU

    TN
    A&M
    FLA
    OM

    ARK
    MSU
    SC
    KY

    Mizzou
    Vandy
    I agree with your tiers according to the rankings.

    Now look at those tiers and tell me how anyone can say the numbers assigned to players are accurate a large amount of the time. To do so, you would have to say vandy, sc, ky, msu, om, fla, tn, Aggie, aub, and Lsu are coached by outliers bc their teams are either way outperforming (first 4) or underperforming (final 6) their recruiting rankings.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,866
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    maybe Mullen just does an exceptional job at finding and developing talent that others miss and UT sucks at it.... I admit MSU is definitely an "outlier"...
    .
    That's just it. Dan is not some kind of ninja wizard who can magically develop sucky two stars into great players at EVERY position. The truth is he finds a bunch of kids that should be 90+ but are rated 78-83 at linebacker, corner, o-line, d-line etc.. it's bc he can evaluate talent better than yancy and chuck.

  10. #30
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by confucius say View Post
    I agree with your tiers according to the rankings.

    Now look at those tiers and tell me how anyone can say the numbers assigned to players are accurate a large amount of the time. To do so, you would have to say vandy, sc, ky, msu, om, fla, tn, Aggie, aub, and Lsu are coached by outliers bc their teams are either way outperforming (first 4) or underperforming (final 6) their recruiting rankings.


    I think it's premature to evaluate 2017 data. How many SEC games have we had? 3??? Not sure, I'm remote.
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  11. #31
    Senior Member TaleofTwoDogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,526
    vCash
    116183
    Quote Originally Posted by Homedawg View Post
    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.
    ^^THIS^^

    Do we even have any 2 stars on the roster? We recruit 3 stars and 4 stars and rarely a 5 star. Give me a hard working class of 50% 3s, 40% 4s and 10% 5 stars and you will be in the hunt for championships.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,252
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by confucius say View Post
    TL/DR.

    1. According to rankings, We are not in same tier as fla, tenn, auburn, or Aggie. More like ark. Look at rankings. However, we do have more talent than all four. Which proves my point that the number assigned to a player is irrelevant unless it's accurate, and it's inaccurate at least 50% of the time.
    We have more talent than auburn? Really? No. Just no. We might beat them. It it won't be because we have more talent.

  13. #33
    Senior Member Jack Lambert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    misippi
    Posts
    13,643
    vCash
    2238605444
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgs View Post
    OM doesn’t really have more talent than we do even by star ratings now that the nkemdiche/treadwell/tunsil class is gone. Tennessee, a&m, and Florida haven’t recruited significantly better than us over the previous 4-5 years and are definitely within some reasonable range of volatility where 1 or 2 guys underperforming/overperforming can swing the perception of the class.

    If we could keep our QB and coaching staff (and assuming lsu’s front 7 is healthy), I’d swap the rest of the roster with lsu’s. Fortunately for us, QB, coaching, and lsu’s lack of health in the front 7 let us dominate that game. A bad QB and a shit head coach can definitely sink an otherwise great roster.

    Right now the sec recruiting talent can be tiered:
    Tier 1: bama
    Tier 2: lsu, uga
    Tier 3: a&m, Florida, auburn, Tennessee, usce, MSU, OM (pre-NCAA trouble at least)
    Tier 4: Arkansas, Kentucky
    Tier 5: Missouri, vandy

    The problem is so many of y’all look at the trees you miss the forest. Is the difference between a 88 and a 89 rated player significant? Nope. If your coach prefers the 88 rated guy then let the coach get the one he likes better with complaining about choosing the lower rated guy, even if it slightly hurts your recruiting rankings. A 2* turning into a stud doesn’t mean the recruiting rankings are bullshit, it means that they aren’t perfect. That’s just how it is.

    But you literally can’t look at the meta-data and tell me there’s no difference in signing a bunch of 4-5* players and a bunch of 2-3* players. The math proves that 4-5* players become college starters, all conference players, and nfl draft picks at a much higher rate than 3* players, and likewise 3* guys succeed at a higher rate than 2* guys. That’s just a fact.

    Now can a coach with superior player evaluation and development skills nail the right 2-3* guys at a higher rate than average? Sure they can, and some have made a great career out of it. Mullen, ferentz, gundy, Beamer, snyder, whoever coaches Wisconsin (since it doesn’t seem to matter), etc. have done it. But most of those guys also hit a ceiling and seem to come up 1 or 2 players short when they have a shot at making a natty run. Not that a 10 or 11 win season isn’t awesome, but it’s also not an undefeated season or playing for a natty.

    Our starters may be on par with bama or usc or Ohio st or Oklahoma or Clemson, but what happens if Simmons gets hurt? We don’t have a stud waiting behind him to pick up the slack. It will really hurt our defense. Bama is more prepared to lose a guy like that and keep rolling because behind their starters they have another 4 or 5 * ready to get his shot. We have a development 3* guy not ready to take on a full time role.

    This is rambling because it’s not a black and white issue and there’s lots that go into discussing recruiting rankings besides claiming they mean everything or they mean nothing. But simply go look at the teams that have played for the national title in the last decade. Almost every one of them averaged a top 10 recruiting ranking the previous 4 season cycles. The ones that didn’t were still top 15 and had a transcendent QB (cam, mariota, Watson) and/or coach ahead of his time (chip Kelly). I’m not saying it’s impossible to win a natty with our talent, but our margin of error is very very thin. We’d need to avoid injuries, fitz would need to continue to develop into a heisman contender, and Mullen would need to resist the urge to tuck his wiener in upcoming big games, and then we’d have to still execute at a high level.

    So yeah, stars matter. QB, coaching staff, and health are the 3 things that can lead to overachieving or underachieving. Fortunately we have 2 of the 3 right now that are key to overachieving.
    So you would trade our defense?
    Last edited by Jack Lambert; 09-20-2017 at 09:43 PM.

  14. #34
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by TaleofTwoDogs View Post
    ^^THIS^^

    Do we even have any 2 stars on the roster? We recruit 3 stars and 4 stars and rarely a 5 star. Give me a hard working class of 50% 3s, 40% 4s and 10% 5 stars and you will be in the hunt for championships.
    10% 5 stars will put ya in the mix fo sho. 50% 4-5 stars & it'd take a horrible coach to keep you out of the top 10-15.
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    3,828
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by TaleofTwoDogs View Post
    ^^THIS^^

    Do we even have any 2 stars on the roster? We recruit 3 stars and 4 stars and rarely a 5 star. Give me a hard working class of 50% 3s, 40% 4s and 10% 5 stars and you will be in the hunt for championships.
    That 50/40/10 ratio is like a top 5-10 class.

  16. #36
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgs View Post
    That 50/40/10 ratio is like a top 5-10 class.
    Top 10, as things stand now...

    good call, buddy...
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  17. #37
    Senior Member NYDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    144
    vCash
    2613
    FWIW, this is the average national recruiting ranking (per 247) over the last four years in the west:

    1 Alabama (1,1,1,1)
    4 LSU (2,5,2,7)
    8 Auburn (6,8,9,9)
    11.75 A&M (5,11,18,13)
    17 OM (15,17,5,31)
    25.25 Arkansas (29,22,23,27)
    26.5 MSU (36,18,28,24)

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,866
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Homedawg View Post
    We have more talent than auburn? Really? No. Just no. We might beat them. It it won't be because we have more talent.
    we have more players on our team that will be on a nfl roster/practice squad than auburn does.

  19. #39
    Senior Member fader2103's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,385
    vCash
    3116
    Bo Bounds had a good quote today on his show. There might be 35, 5***** players every year across the country. The reason for maybe 75, 5 star players are all about click bait (paraphrasing of course)

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,866
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by NYDawg View Post
    FWIW, this is the average national recruiting ranking (per 247) over the last four years in the west:

    1 Alabama (1,1,1,1)
    4 LSU (2,5,2,7)
    8 Auburn (6,8,9,9)
    11.75 A&M (5,11,18,13)
    17 OM (15,17,5,31)
    25.25 Arkansas (29,22,23,27)
    26.5 MSU (36,18,28,24)
    Yet we've won more games during that time than every team listed except Bama. All hail dan the ninja wizard!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.