The facts on how yesterday went

[starkvegasdawg]

I'm sure by now if you've been within a 1,000 feet of a bear all you have heard was how they once again had the better recruiting class. Even St. Bucky the Magnaminous lied about where their class ended up ranked and later retracted it so I heard. So, here are the facts. Of the four major recruit ranking sites (Scout, Rivals, 24/7, and ESPN) MSU and TSUN split with the higher ranked class. MSU had the higher ranking in Rivals and ESPN while TSUN was higher in Scout and 24/7. But, when you average the final rankings MSU had a composite class ranking of 17 and the bears was 18.25. Our highest ranking among the 4 sites was 16 (ESPN and Rivals) and lowest was 18 (Scout and 24/7). The bears highest was 16 (Scout) and lowest was 21 (Rivals). No site had the bears ranked higher than our highest ranking but Rivals had them ranked 21 which was lower than any of ours.

So, when you hear them try to say they had the highest class please correct them as rudely and bluntly as you can. The same goes when they start to spew out that garbage about Leo Lewis.

[1bigdawg]

I don't care about rankings and believe we have by far the better class for us. On top of everything tsun seemed to intentionally sign several sing and place guys to boost their ranking. Having said all of that, I believe Scout and 247 are much better sources for rankings than ESPN and Rivals. Their only weakness is not being able to account or discount for the JJ Grants of the world.

[codeDawg]

I'm sure by now if you've been within a 1,000 feet of a bear all you have heard was how they once again had the better recruiting class. Even St. Bucky the Magnaminous lied about where their class ended up ranked and later retracted it so I heard. So, here are the facts. Of the four major recruit ranking sites (Scout, Rivals, 24/7, and ESPN) MSU and TSUN split with the higher ranked class. MSU had the higher ranking in Rivals and ESPN while TSUN was higher in Scout and 24/7. But, when you average the final rankings MSU had a composite class ranking of 17 and the bears was 18.25. Our highest ranking among the 4 sites was 16 (ESPN and Rivals) and lowest was 18 (Scout and 24/7). The bears highest was 16 (Scout) and lowest was 21 (Rivals). No site had the bears ranked higher than our highest ranking but Rivals had them ranked 21 which was lower than any of ours.

So, when you hear them try to say they had the highest class please correct them as rudely and bluntly as you can. The same goes when they start to spew out that garbage about Leo Lewis.

I'll say what I said yesterday. Ole Miss is not our measuring stick. Signing day is an important part of the process, but you don't get to trade in stars for W's or points. We got the guys that will help OUR team score, defend and win. They can have their reality Internet show if they want it.

[gravedigger]

The facts on yesterday, as a whole, will not be really known until the opening game of 2017 and even then marginally.

Some will pan out and some wont. I just like the fact that our kids stuck with us in spite of us not making a
Central theme out of a party.

[HSVDawg]

First of all, I agree with codeDawg in that there are better measuring sticks than Ole Miss, and I generally take recruiting rankings of both schools with a grain of salt as we typically get more bang for our buck than Ole Miss does based on the star rankings. Also, if you just look at the rankings alone its splitting hairs to argue who had the best class when both us and OM finished in the 16-19 range on all 4 major sites. The classes when looked at using only the rankings are basically even. However, the one area that the mythical recruiting website rankings ALWAYS fail to address is how well teams meet their needs with their classes. If you look at Ole Miss, they got a late bump in the rankings from Lodge and Jefferson committing (one 5* WR and one 4* WR). Unfortunately for them, they were already deep at WR and in the secondary so they needed minimal help there. The biggest items of concern for them were QB, OL, DL, and LB and they got minimal help there outside of Javon Patterson and a complete head case in Chad Kelly. We on the other hand got help pretty much everywhere we needed it (JUCO OT, OL, S, WR, DL). We'll know for sure in 3 years but I certainly wouldn't trade rosters or classes with them now.

[IMissJack]

I'll say what I said yesterday. Ole Miss is not our measuring stick. Signing day is an important part of the process, but you don't get to trade in stars for W's or points. We got the guys that will help OUR team score, defend and win. They can have their reality Internet show if they want it.

See TCU

[yjnkdawg]

If you have a top ten recruting class and you have not met your needs, then what have you accomplished? Some LSU people want Miles and Frank Wilson to explain? I knew the OM fanbase and apparently the coaching staff too, are just obsessed with stars, but OM didn't really meet all their needs, either. I think our 2015 class is based upon needs and we still got some top notch talented players.

[IMissJack]

Give me a broad based group of talent like we got any day over some high profiles at a few positions.

[archdog]

Our class is exactly what we needed to take a step further. I do not follow UM enough to know what they have or what they are losing to know if they improved or missed. All I do know is that they did not get a qb worth anything. Nothing better than Bo anyway. Ours meet all our needs and looks to be some real quality guys. We will know what we got around the end of fall camp. Until then we don't really know these guys drive in the training room, film room, practice field, and how they look lined up against other sec players. Dan has produced quality out of every class. Even the ones we were all pissed about. Dan knows more than I do about talent evaluation, I do know that. And its starting to look like he knows more than Feeze and company about turning potential into production.