Tommy Champion is now a 4 star per Paul Jones. Congrats to him!!. That makes 9 4 *

[whosyourdawgy]

for us now

[TheRef]

MULLEN CAN'T CROOT!!!!1!1!!1111!!!

[FISHDAWG]

Congrats Tommy !!

[RossDawg82]

how does that work? Could there be some more players that jump in the rankings for us. We have a ton of 3 stars that are just below the 4 star threshold. Is there any chance some of them move up during the year? Just a few questions from someone who doesn't really understand the ranking system.

[TheRef]

how does that work? Could there be some more players that jump in the rankings for us. We have a ton of 3 stars that are just below the 4 star threshold. Is there any chance some of them move up during the year? Just a few questions from someone who doesn't really understand the ranking system.

There could be players that go up in rankings and there could be players that drop in rankings. The rankings system is very fluid in that manner with the exception of the national top 20 or so.

[chainedup_Dawg]

how does that work? Could there be some more players that jump in the rankings for us. We have a ton of 3 stars that are just below the 4 star threshold. Is there any chance some of them move up during the year? Just a few questions from someone who doesn't really understand the ranking system.

You are correct. We will have some more guys be bumped to 4 *. This early, guys have not been evaluated thoroughly, especially at the smaller schools. Look for more to get the bump as the year progresses. Just don't ask me how many!

[shoeless joe]

So do stars matter now?***

[jumbo]

Deddrick Thomas will probably be bumped. Lewis and Peters are both 2 points away from a 5th star

[TheRef]

So do stars matter now?***

If we're going to beat OM in crootin, then we might as well hurt them where it hurts the most. STARZZZZZ!!111!11!!11!1!!

[starkvegasdawg]

how does that work? Could there be some more players that jump in the rankings for us. We have a ton of 3 stars that are just below the 4 star threshold. Is there any chance some of them move up during the year? Just a few questions from someone who doesn't really understand the ranking system.

It's very simple. If you commit to a school like Alabama, OSU, etc. you automatically get a two star bump. If you then decommit from one of those schools but you might commit back you lose one star. If you do indeed commit back to that school you get that star back. If you decommit from one of those schools and make it clear you do not intend to commit back to that school or another one of equal stature you lose three stars. When you later commit to an elite school that is not a rival of one of the schools on the list you get two stars back. If you commit to a school like us you might get one star back. Howver, of you commit to a rival of one of the schools on that list you gain no stars back and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Pollodawg]

I wonder if the cornfeds will care now?*****


But srsly, congrats to Tommy more than anything else. You earned, big man.

[MetEdDawg]

I think the best chance for bumps up are Smitherman, Kendall Jones, Keith Mixon, and Deddrick Thomas. You might could add Chris Stamps on this list, but I think the 4 mentioned are the most likely to get a bump up.

Smitherman should have already had the bump up. He's got offers listed on 24/7 from FSU, Clemson, Georga, LSU, Miami, TAMU, Wisconsin, and a slew of others. He's a 4 star prospect and I think that will be reflected in the rankings in the next couple months.

[Pollodawg]

Short answer on the do "starz" matter? question: No. They don't.

Long answer: No, they still don't, but there is no coincidence that Bama and LSU recruit among the best in the nation and continue the level of play they are accustomed to as well. So, yes, recruiting matters. But, if you get guys that fit your system, and work hard, you will have a successful team.

[maroonmania]

Wow, he must have made a significant jump because I didn't think he was that close to being a 4 star? I could be remembering wrong though.

[ShotgunDawg]

I don't think committing to Bama or LSU gives you a two star bump because they do beat us every year. However, what committing to Bama or LSU does do is get your player properly evaluated.

Dedrick Thomas is too low, but the worst ranking we have is a 2 star on Scout for Johnathan Calvin. Calvin has offers from half the SEC but nobody at Scout feels it necessary pop his tape in evaluate him.

Our players just don't get their due or a fair look for an accurate rating.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Champion is the real deal. I'm talking future All SEC OT type good. Everybody was all over Womack but Champion is clearly better when you watch film he just needed to add weight. Well he's gained over 20lbs since the end of his season & has another 20lbs or so to go. He's a great athlete for a kid his size. Very deserving of the ranking.

[Jacksondevildog]

The fourth star equals a hard push from the Rebel coaches. Hopefully Pork Chop can help the good guys over at Callaway.

[maroonmania]

I don't think committing to Bama or LSU gives you a two star bump because they do beat us every year. However, what committing to Bama or LSU does do is get your player properly evaluated.

Dedrick Thomas is too low, but the worst ranking we have is a 2 star on Scout for Johnathan Calvin. Calvin has offers from half the SEC but nobody at Scout feels it necessary pop his tape in evaluate him.

Our players just don't get their due or a fair look for an accurate rating.

Yep, and I think there is some natural correlation, because a lot of these recruiting website evaluators are amateurs at it at best, so they are naturally going to give the benefit of the doubt and higher ratings to recruits that schools like AL, LSU, GA, OH ST, TX, FSU, etc. are after the most.

[ShotgunDawg]

Short answer on the "starz? question: No. They don't.

Long answer: No, they still don't, but there is no coincidence that Bama and LSU recruit among the best in the nation and continue the level of play they are accustomed to as well. So, yes, recruiting matters. But, if you get guys that fit your system, and work hard, you will have a successful team.

Recruiting ranking only matter for the top 5-8 teams that are recruiting no brainer players that fit into any system. For example, Jamal Peters isn't very difficult to evaluate because he is a stud and fits into any system for any team. However, Keith Mixon/ Jameon Lewis are very difficult to evaluate because the offense in which they play is likely to determine their success.

Mixon, in our offense, could be a 4 star value, but Peters is a 4/5 star value for anyone. When your recruiting class is made up mostly of "no brainers" like Peters, your probably going to win, and that's the top 5-8 teams. After that it's about fit, culture, and coaching. 8-about 30 all have similar talent.

[jumbo]

Boise State is the perfect example of what stars mean in college football. They are important but so is coaching and development.

Chris Peterson is a hell of a coach and developer and he brought Boise to the national stage without 4 and 5 star kids, but could only get so far because you still need blue chips studs to compete year in year out.

[ShotgunDawg]

Boise State is the perfect example of what stars mean in college football. They are important but so is coaching and development.

Chris Peterson is a hell of a coach and developer and he brought Boise to the national stage without 4 and 5 star kids, but could only get so far because you still need blue chips studs to compete year in year out.

Bad example, Boise never played the week in and week out competition. No doubt they were well coached, but, if they would've had to play an SEC schedule week in and week out, they would've been Vandy or Kentucky

Mizzou is a good example.

[Pollodawg]

Recruiting ranking only matter for the top 5-8 teams that are recruiting no brainer players that fit into any system. For example, Jamal Peters isn't very difficult to evaluate because he is a stud and fits into any system for any team. However, Keith Mixon/ Jameon Lewis are very difficult to evaluate because the offense in which they play is likely to determine their success.

Mixon, in our offense, could be a 4 star value, but Peters is a 4/5 star value for anyone. When your recruiting class is made up mostly of "no brainers" like Peters, your probably going to win, and that's the top 5-8 teams. After that it's about fit, culture, and coaching. 8-about 30 all have similar talent.

You said what I was trying to say but better.

[Pollodawg]

Bad example, Boise never played the week in and week out competition. No doubt they were well coached, but, if they would've had to play an SEC schedule week in and week out, they would've been Vandy or Kentucky

Mizzou is a good example.

Agree on Mizzou. And when people get caught up on stars, I'm always tempted to remind them that JFF was a 3* and was at one time being recruited as an "athlete."

[BeardoMSU]

Which of our 4*'s will likely get bumped up to 5's? Peters, obviously, but who else?

[MetEdDawg]

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;219007]Recruiting ranking only matter for the top 5-8 teams that are recruiting no brainer players that fit into any system. For example, Jamal Peters isn't very difficult to evaluate because he is a stud and fits into any system for any team. However, Keith Mixon/ Jameon Lewis are very difficult to evaluate because the offense in which they play is likely to determine their success.

Mixon, in our offense, could be a 4 star value, but Peters is a 4/5 star value for anyone. When your recruiting class is made up mostly of "no brainers" like Peters, your probably going to win, and that's the top 5-8 teams. After that it's about fit, culture, and coaching. 8-about 30 all have similar talent.[/QUOTE

Even though there are good pieces in last year's class, it didn't have the upper end talent that we need to compete in the SEC. Graham, Green, and Aeris are great pieces don't get me wrong. But we had 4 4 stars last year. This year we already have 9 and we are still in pursuit of Lewis, Adams, Patterson, Bates, Payne, and a few others. We've got to have more of those guys like Peters that are no brainers, which to me are guys ranked in the Top 300.

You are right that 8-30 are pretty similar. If we can stay in the Top 25 in recruiting every year, I think we will be able to maintain a high level of success for a long period of time, and by that I mean at least 8 wins per year. We will get good guys out of last years class, but it was ranked #35. We have to get inside that Top 25 if we want to be serious in competing with the big boys. We can develop talent as well as anyone else in the SEC in my opinion. Now if we are able to get deeper classes that come in at a higher level already, just think what more we can do.

[ShotgunDawg]

Which of our 4*'s will likely get bumped up to 5's? Peters, obviously, but who else?

Peters could be bumped up, and Leo Lewis (if you choose to believe that he is already committed to us) has a chance as well. The recruiting ranking people and the media won't allow MSU to have any more 5 stars than that. Screws up business.

[ShotgunDawg]

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;219007]Recruiting ranking only matter for the top 5-8 teams that are recruiting no brainer players that fit into any system. For example, Jamal Peters isn't very difficult to evaluate because he is a stud and fits into any system for any team. However, Keith Mixon/ Jameon Lewis are very difficult to evaluate because the offense in which they play is likely to determine their success.

Mixon, in our offense, could be a 4 star value, but Peters is a 4/5 star value for anyone. When your recruiting class is made up mostly of "no brainers" like Peters, your probably going to win, and that's the top 5-8 teams. After that it's about fit, culture, and coaching. 8-about 30 all have similar talent.[/QUOTE

Even though there are good pieces in last year's class, it didn't have the upper end talent that we need to compete in the SEC. Graham, Green, and Aeris are great pieces don't get me wrong. But we had 4 4 stars last year. This year we already have 9 and we are still in pursuit of Lewis, Adams, Patterson, Bates, Payne, and a few others. We've got to have more of those guys like Peters that are no brainers, which to me are guys ranked in the Top 300.

You are right that 8-30 are pretty similar. If we can stay in the Top 25 in recruiting every year, I think we will be able to maintain a high level of success for a long period of time, and by that I mean at least 8 wins per year. We will get good guys out of last years class, but it was ranked #35. We have to get inside that Top 25 if we want to be serious in competing with the big boys. We can develop talent as well as anyone else in the SEC in my opinion. Now if we are able to get deeper classes that come in at a higher level already, just think what more we can do.

Completely agree. Last year was a small class, so it is understood that the ranking would be lower.

Staying in the top 25 in recruiting should be our attainable goal. By finishing in the top 25 every year, we won't have as much talent as Bama, LSU, AUB, or TAMU, but we will have enough good players and depth to win if we play better than them.

For example, I heard the other day that Alabama has 65 4/5 star recruits on their roster. This is amazing and obviously makes them very very good, but teams can only have 11 players on the field at any given time, and 20 of those 65 aren't likely to have any meaningful impact on the game. Therefore, if MSU can get 25+ or so 4/5 recruits on the roster, then man for man in the starting lineups, our talents is similar. Then if we play better, we have a real shot to win.

[Pollodawg]

Peters could be bumped up, and Leo Lewis (if you choose to believe that he is already committed to us) has a chance as well. The recruiting ranking people and the media won't allow MSU to have any more 5 stars than that. Screws up business.

What do you choose to believe, sir?

[dawgs]

It's very simple. If you commit to a school like Alabama, OSU, etc. you automatically get a two star bump. If you then decommit from one of those schools but you might commit back you lose one star. If you do indeed commit back to that school you get that star back. If you decommit from one of those schools and make it clear you do not intend to commit back to that school or another one of equal stature you lose three stars. When you later commit to an elite school that is not a rival of one of the schools on the list you get two stars back. If you commit to a school like us you might get one star back. Howver, of you commit to a rival of one of the schools on that list you gain no stars back and may God have mercy on your soul.

That's ludicrous. There's a reason Bama and ohio st win a bunch and it's not because they have 3* talents artificially bumped up to 4* and 5* rankings due to the school they're committed to. They consistently sign the best players and they consistently win big. Not a coincidence.

And yes, some teams have had big success on the backs of 3* heavy classes and some teams have flopped with 4* and 5* heavy classes. No system is perfect, but the odds show that the higher the player is rated in recruiting, the better chance the player has of becoming a good college player, all-American, NFL draft pick, etc.

[Political Hack]

That's ludicrous. There's a reason Bama and ohio st win a bunch and it's not because they have 3* talents artificially bumped up to 4* and 5* rankings due to the school they're committed to. They consistently sign the best players and they consistently win big. Not a coincidence.

And yes, some teams have had big success on the backs of 3* heavy classes and some teams have flopped with 4* and 5* heavy classes. No system is perfect, but the odds show that the higher the player is rated in recruiting, the better chance the player has of becoming a good college player, all-American, NFL draft pick, etc.

still chicken or the egg though... are they a 5 because Bama evaluated and offered or because some recruiting website identified them early and made them a five and then Bama offered? I say the Bama offer comes first.

It's like Chris Jones. I got drilled for being jacked up about a 2 star commit. The star services wouldn't give him a bump... then State offered, then OM, then Bama, etc... and all of a sudden he's a five star.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

I wish they'd rate every one of our commits 2 stars

[PMDawg]

Bad example, Boise never played the week in and week out competition. No doubt they were well coached, but, if they would've had to play an SEC schedule week in and week out, they would've been Vandy or Kentucky

Mizzou is a good example.

SMH....Good grief.

[ShotgunDawg]

What do you choose to believe, sir?

I wouldn't be shocked if our staff feels really really good about that situation. Hence, why Caban isn't being pursued.

[starkvegasdawg]

That's ludicrous. There's a reason Bama and ohio st win a bunch and it's not because they have 3* talents artificially bumped up to 4* and 5* rankings due to the school they're committed to. They consistently sign the best players and they consistently win big. Not a coincidence.

And yes, some teams have had big success on the backs of 3* heavy classes and some teams have flopped with 4* and 5* heavy classes. No system is perfect, but the odds show that the higher the player is rated in recruiting, the better chance the player has of becoming a good college player, all-American, NFL draft pick, etc.

Ok. I thought the sarcasm in that post would have been obvious. Maybe not. So go back and read my post again but include the following addition - ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** **********

[thf24]

SMH....Good grief.

I don't think Boise necessarily would have been a bottom feeder, but do you really think they'd have been much better than a 7-5 team in the SEC any one of the years they were ranked top 10-15?

[ShotgunDawg]

I don't think Boise necessarily would have been a bottom feeder, but do you really think they'd have been much better than a 7-5 team in the SEC any one of the years they were ranked top 10-15?

I don't think they would be a bottom feeder at first, but they would over time. They simply don't have the local recruiting base to keep up, and, once they started losing games, they wouldn't be able to draw kids from southern California.

Boise has less resources than any SEC school, a worse local recruiting base than any SEC school, and less money than any SEC school. Give me one reason why they wouldn't be an SEC bottom feeder within 5 years of joining our conference. There must be a bridge, because winning doesn't happen by accident.

[PMDawg]

I don't think Boise necessarily would have been a bottom feeder, but do you really think they'd have been much better than a 7-5 team in the SEC any one of the years they were ranked top 10-15?

You mean like the year they pounded SECE champion Georgia? Yeah, they would've been ok. Or the 2006 team that went undefeated and beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? Or the 2009 team that went undefeated and won Fiesta Bowl over TCU? Between 2008 and 2012 they went 61-5. So yeah I'm gonna guess they would've been better than 35-25 over that same period had they been in the SEC.

[CadaverDawg]

Happy for Champion. Good pick up for our staff. Do we feel good about his commitment being firm? I'd love to know his guy is firm with his commitment, so our coaches can go after Javon and others now even harder.

[ShotgunDawg]

You mean like the year they pounded SECE champion Georgia? Yeah, they would've been ok. Or the 2006 team that went undefeated and beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? Or the 2009 team that went undefeated and won Fiesta Bowl over TCU? Between 2008 and 2012 they went 61-5. So yeah I'm gonna guess they would've been better than 35-25 over that same period had they been in the SEC.

Completely disagree. The SEC would bleed them over time. They wouldn't have to the resources to not be a bottom feeder. The reason they are able to attract players right now is because they win, and kids in Southern Cal go there because they are a good option after USC, UCLA, and Stanford fill up. Once Boise began losing games in the SEC, 10-2 becomes 8-4, 8-4 becomes 6-6, etc... The kids from Southern Cal would no longer be interested in going there. After 5 years in the SEC, Boise wouldn't be able to compete.

[msstate7]

Happy for Champion. Good pick up for our staff. Do we feel good about his commitment being firm? I'd love to know his guy is firm with his commitment, so our coaches can go after Javon and others now even harder.

I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. I'm sure OM coaches recruited champion, but now OM boosters will probably take over now that he's a 4-star. Gotta hold onto this kid...

[PMDawg]

I don't think they would be a bottom feeder at first, but they would over time. They simply don't have the local recruiting base to keep up, and, once they started losing games, they wouldn't be able to draw kids from southern California.

Boise has less resources than any SEC school, a worse local recruiting base than any SEC school, and less money than any SEC school. Give me one reason why they wouldn't be an SEC bottom feeder within 5 years of joining our conference. There must be a bridge, because winning doesn't happen by accident.

Yeah, I'm not gonna argue this based on a bunch of made up assumptions or premises. All I'm saying is 2002 to 2012 Boise St would've done well in any conference. They were damn good. Good enough to win the SEC? No one will ever know. Good enough to pound the likes of Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Croom MSU, ole miss, etc? It's laughable that that's even a question.

[ShotgunDawg]

Yeah, I'm not gonna argue this based on a bunch of made up assumptions or premises. All I'm saying is 2002 to 2012 Boise St would've done well in any conference. They were damn good. Good enough to win the SEC? No one will ever know. Good enough to pound the likes of Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Croom MSU, ole miss, etc? It's laughable that that's even a question.

Completely agree. All I'm saying is that their lack of resources would have caught up with them if they played SEC competition week in and week out.

[PMDawg]

Completely agree. All I'm saying is that their lack of resources would have caught up with them if they played SEC competition week in and week out.

Well ok. So the rest you may be right on, but it depends on a lot of unknowns or assumptions. Maybe their recruiting and facilities pick up from being in the SEC. Maybe not. There's really know way to know but I guess your scenario is as likely as any other.

[sandwolf]

still chicken or the egg though... are they a 5 because Bama evaluated and offered or because some recruiting website identified them early and made them a five and then Bama offered? I say the Bama offer comes first.

It's like Chris Jones. I got drilled for being jacked up about a 2 star commit. The star services wouldn't give him a bump... then State offered, then OM, then Bama, etc... and all of a sudden he's a five star.

You get way too caught up in trying to discredit the web site recruiting gurus. It really doesn't matter how they arrive at their ratings......the point is that by and large, the rating system works. Hell, at SEC Media Days, Steve Spurrier even made a comment about how the recruiting websites get it right for the most part.

[ShotgunDawg]

You get way too caught up in trying to discredit the web site recruiting gurus. It really doesn't matter how they arrive at their ratings......the point is that by and large, the rating system works. Hell, at SEC Media Days, Steve Spurrier even made a comment about how the recruiting websites get it right for the most part.

Steve Spurrier doesn't recruit Mississippi either. I agree that they do a decent job overall, but they suck in Mississippi. They don't even truly evaluate many of our recruits.

[thf24]

You mean like the year they pounded SECE champion Georgia? Yeah, they would've been ok. Or the 2006 team that went undefeated and beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? Or the 2009 team that went undefeated and won Fiesta Bowl over TCU? Between 2008 and 2012 they went 61-5. So yeah I'm gonna guess they would've been better than 35-25 over that same period had they been in the SEC.

Anyone with average talent and a good coach can beat anyone else on a neutral site, especially when the opponent is underestimating them. The argument during that time period was never whether or not Boise could get up and beat a single power conference team (which, as you point out, they did several times). It was whether or not they could achieve the same level of success playing week in and week out against the physicality of the SEC, or simply the talent of other power conferences. Keep in mind this is not a deeply hypothetical question of how they would do if they were an actual SEC member for multiple years with all the benefits that would entail; simply how they would do if they were inserted into an SEC schedule for one season, all other things being the same. I just don't see them going 11-1 or 10-2 under that circumstance.

[sandwolf]

Steve Spurrier doesn't recruit Mississippi either. I agree that they do a decent job overall, but they suck in Mississippi. They don't even truly evaluate many of our recruits.

I think they generally get the top 20 or so pretty close to right. There may be a higher chance that a recruit or two flies under the radar in MS, but the guys that are being recruited by BCS programs seem to be evaluated pretty fairly.

[ShotgunDawg]

I think they generally get the top 20 or so pretty close to right. There may be a higher chance that a recruit or two flies under the radar in MS, but the guys that are being recruited by BCS programs seem to be evaluated pretty fairly.

Calvin and Stamps don't even have rating yet. Do you think both of those guys are top 20 worthy?

[Political Hack]

You get way too caught up in trying to discredit the web site recruiting gurus. It really doesn't matter how they arrive at their ratings......the point is that by and large, the rating system works. Hell, at SEC Media Days, Steve Spurrier even made a comment about how the recruiting websites get it right for the most part.

discredit them? Five stars are good players. it's like telling you that the White House is white. I don't discredit the guys that work for those sites. Hell, I consider some of them friends. I just think team recruiting rankings and such are stupid. calling a good football player a good football player is a no brainer.

[sandwolf]

Calvin and Stamps don't even have rating yet. Do you think both of those guys are top 20 worthy?

Calvin is supposed to go to a 3 star this week (and Scout has really done a poor job on JUCO's for the past few years). And Stamps does have a 3 star rating......but he does not have a ranking. That is because Scout has decided that they are not going to rank every player at every position anymore.....they are only going to rank through a certain number of players. In other words, if there are 400 WR's in their database, they are not going to try to distinguish between the 220th vs. the 221st best WR......they are only going to go through the top 75 or 100 (or whatever number they decide on). So they evaluated Stamps and they decided that he was a 3 star but that he did not meet the cut off to receive a numerical ranking.

ETA: I am assuming that you are referring to the Scout ratings.

[dawgs]

Completely disagree. The SEC would bleed them over time. They wouldn't have to the resources to not be a bottom feeder. The reason they are able to attract players right now is because they win, and kids in Southern Cal go there because they are a good option after USC, UCLA, and Stanford fill up. Once Boise began losing games in the SEC, 10-2 becomes 8-4, 8-4 becomes 6-6, etc... The kids from Southern Cal would no longer be interested in going there. After 5 years in the SEC, Boise wouldn't be able to compete.

Well you have to consider that if Boise was hypothetically in the sec, they'd have a hell of a lot more money to spend. They'd also be more enticing to recruits. Not saying that they wouldn't struggle, but you can't say that if they joined the sec they wouldn't have the money or the pull to land talent, because those things come with being a part of the sec.

[dawgs]

still chicken or the egg though... are they a 5 because Bama evaluated and offered or because some recruiting website identified them early and made them a five and then Bama offered? I say the Bama offer comes first.

It's like Chris Jones. I got drilled for being jacked up about a 2 star commit. The star services wouldn't give him a bump... then State offered, then OM, then Bama, etc... and all of a sudden he's a five star.

I just fail to see your point though, either chris jones is a badass that deserved to be a 5* and as high as the #2 player in the country, or his ranking was horseshit based on offers from Bama and other elite programs. He was a late bloomer and didn't camp prior to his senior year, right? It seems like around this time in his recruiting cycle was when the buzz started and just kept growing as he kept kicking ass. Of course the recruiting guys are going to not slap a 5* on an unknown they've only seen 1 weekend in case it was a fluke performance, but the buzz was definitely there. When he proved it wasn't a fluke, his ranking skyrocketed. Either way, sounds like recruiting guys are damned if they do, damned if they don't in your mind.

[ShotgunDawg]

Well you have to consider that if Boise was hypothetically in the sec, they'd have a hell of a lot more money to spend. They'd also be more enticing to recruits. Not saying that they wouldn't struggle, but you can't say that if they joined the sec they wouldn't have the money or the pull to land talent, because those things come with being a part of the sec.

True, they would have more money, but they still wouldn't have a good local recruiting base. Oregon is the only perinneal top 30 or so program without a good local recruiting base. Boise woul never have first pick on players. MSU doesn't have first pick on a ton of players, but we do with Mississippi kids, an since Mississippi produces good talent, we find enough to survive. It would be tough for Boise.

[Political Hack]

I just fail to see your point though, either chris jones is a badass that deserved to be a 5* and as high as the #2 player in the country, or his ranking was horseshit based on offers from Bama and other elite programs. He was a late bloomer and didn't camp prior to his senior year, right? It seems like around this time in his recruiting cycle was when the buzz started and just kept growing as he kept kicking ass. Of course the recruiting guys are going to not slap a 5* on an unknown they've only seen 1 weekend in case it was a fluke performance, but the buzz was definitely there. When he proved it wasn't a fluke, his ranking skyrocketed. Either way, sounds like recruiting guys are damned if they do, damned if they don't in your mind.

Why not rank him a 5 star before he gets all the offers? they didn't see him time and time and time again. they saw him a few times and made the excuse to rate him 1 star higher each time they saw him while he also started getting offers. Bottom line, kids with good offers will be ranked higher. I don't think I've ever seen a guy with numerous legit SEC offers stay at a 2 star, but I guarantee you some of them have played like two stars.

Also, just to clarify, I don't dislike the sites or the guys that run the sites. It's a great business model and they produce a lot of insightful information that fans wouldn't otherwise have access to. I just don't get the "star gazers" and why people give a damn about where our class is ranked versus anyone else's, etc...