Is our recruiting ranking ceiling at 16?

[Jack Lambert]

Seems like we would need to sign more out of state recruits to get any higher. Am I'm wrong on that assumption?

I'm talking football.

[dawgday166]

Seems like we would need to sign more out of state recruits to get any higher. Am I'm wrong on that assumption?

I'm talking football.

Our best was 2015 I believe and close to half of those came from Alabama. So I'm thinking what you say must be so.

[ShotgunDawg]

Small class, so the rankin will probably be in the 30s. It's a quality over quantity class.

Without having more players drafted, it's tough for us to make real headway in the recruiting rankings because scholarships are locked up for 4 or 5 years thus limiting the amount of guys we can sign. Conversely, LSU and Bama sign full classes every year because guys leave, thus leaving less top talent for anyone else to sign.

[Johnson85]

Seems like we would need to sign more out of state recruits to get any higher. Am I'm wrong on that assumption?

I'm talking football.

The ceiling for our four year average is somewhere in the teens unless we go on a tear where our recruits get bumps just for getting an offer from us.

Basically, you have ten to fifteen blue blood schools that barring an atrocious year, are going to be ranking in the top 15. We can have a good year that is better, but we're not going to consistently get inside the top 12-15 unless we perform well enough for long enough that recruiting sites start to assume the classes we sign are better than 12-15 just because we signed them.

Realistically, with Mullen developing our QBs, all we need is to consistently be in teh top twenty and have enough balance across positions to not have devastating weak links.

[SouthMSDog]

"The ceiling is the roof."

[Political Hack]

Bama, FSU, Clemson, Ohio State, LSU, Texas, USC, A&M, UGA, Michigan, Oklahoma, Auburn, Notre Dame, and maybe a few others are typically going to be ahead of us. That puts us in the teens at best, but we'll pull ahead of some of those in some years. Ole Miss not being able to pay out the ying yang for players in MS right now shoukdnhelp, but we'll still be behind those others for the most part.

That said, recruiting rankings are garbage. Dak was a 3*. BMac was a 2*. Chris Jones was a 2*. Snoop and Tobias were 4/5*. People get all worked up over recruiting site rankings, but I can promise you we did better with our 3* QB, 2* DT, and 2* LB than most did with their 4* kids.

[Todd4State]

Bama, FSU, Clemson, Ohio State, LSU, Texas, USC, A&M, UGA, Michigan, Oklahoma, Auburn, Notre Dame, and maybe a few others are typically going to be ahead of us. That puts us in the teens at best, but we'll pull ahead of some of those in some years. Ole Miss not being able to pay out the ying yang for players in MS right now shoukdnhelp, but we'll still be behind those others for the most part.

That said, recruiting rankings are garbage. Dak was a 3*. BMac was a 2*. Chris Jones was a 2*. Snoop and Tobias were 4/5*. People get all worked up over recruiting site rankings, but I can promise you we did better with our 3* QB, 2* DT, and 2* LB than most did with their 4* kids.

Of course on draft day the recruiting web sites talk about how "right" they were because they rank commits for the schools you mentioned higher so it makes it look like they "mean something". But I would be willing to bet that for what our guys get rated MSU probably produces some of the best talent above what our players are ranked coming out of high school as far as production in the NFL.

[dawgs]

Bama, FSU, Clemson, Ohio State, LSU, Texas, USC, A&M, UGA, Michigan, Oklahoma, Auburn, Notre Dame, and maybe a few others are typically going to be ahead of us. That puts us in the teens at best, but we'll pull ahead of some of those in some years. Ole Miss not being able to pay out the ying yang for players in MS right now shoukdnhelp, but we'll still be behind those others for the most part.

That said, recruiting rankings are garbage. Dak was a 3*. BMac was a 2*. Chris Jones was a 2*. Snoop and Tobias were 4/5*. People get all worked up over recruiting site rankings, but I can promise you we did better with our 3* QB, 2* DT, and 2* LB than most did with their 4* kids.

Recruiting rankings aren't garbage. The % of 4* and 5* kids that becomes quality starters/all-conf/all-American/NFL draft picks/quality NFL players is much higher than the % of 3* and 2*. Basically, you have to be the absolute best talent evaluator to sign 25 3* and find the number of quality players that bama signs every year. Even for very good talent evaluators (and I do think dan is one of them), a majority of our 3* signees never become quality starters. Some may start because they are who we have, but they wouldn't start for most other sec programs.

When bama signs 20+ 4-5* guys every cycle, even if half of them never amount to anything, they have 10+ guys that could start for almost anyone in the country in every class. We sign mostly 3* guys, and we might have 1-2 per class that could start for almost anyone in the country, and maybe another 7-8 that are decent sec starters that would struggle to see the field for bama/lsu/uga/Florida most seasons.

Chris jones went from being an unknown that was told by C-USA coaches that he didn't have what it takes to get a scholarship the summer before his senior season to a freak that ended his senior season the #2 rated player in the country. That's an exception, not a rule.

Think big picture when looking at recruiting. There's always an exception (tom Brady in the 6th round), but when you look around the NFL, almost all of the quality or promising QBs are 1st round picks.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

Seems like we would need to sign more out of state recruits to get any higher. Am I'm wrong on that assumption?

I'm talking football.

I would say so. And we have a ready-made excuse every year why it's not higher. Several years ago the line was "Mullen turns 2 and 3 stars into 5 stars before they leave. Trouble with that is when they get to that level, they are gone. This year's excuse is it's a small class.
The real reason is simply that top out of state talent just don't want to come to Mississippi when there are top tier championship programs battling it for them as well.
The real question is there ever going to be enough talent in Mississippi to win a SEC and beyond championship AND if so can we take advantage of the mess our friends up north are in and get those players.

[Dawg61]

This is misleading. Yes there's a higher percentage of 4-5* that make the NFL than 3* but you also have to consider there's way more guys rated 3* than there are 4-5* guys. So if 10 outta 100 4-5* make the NFL and 19 outta 200 3* make the NFL guess what. The 4-5* have a higher percentage. There should be a higher percentage anyways unless every recruiting site sucks total ass and can't identify the best 100-300 players despite being able to just piggyback off of ESPN, Nike, Under Armour, Adidas etc.. and watching who every top football coach recruits.

[confucius say]

Recruiting rankings aren't garbage. The % of 4* and 5* kids that becomes quality starters/all-conf/all-American/NFL draft picks/quality NFL players is much higher than the % of 3* and 2*. Basically, you have to be the absolute best talent evaluator to sign 25 3* and find the number of quality players that bama signs every year. Even for very good talent evaluators (and I do think dan is one of them), a majority of our 3* signees never become quality starters. Some may start because they are who we have, but they wouldn't start for most other sec programs.

When bama signs 20+ 4-5* guys every cycle, even if half of them never amount to anything, they have 10+ guys that could start for almost anyone in the country in every class. We sign mostly 3* guys, and we might have 1-2 per class that could start for almost anyone in the country, and maybe another 7-8 that are decent sec starters that would struggle to see the field for bama/lsu/uga/Florida most seasons.

Chris jones went from being an unknown that was told by C-USA coaches that he didn't have what it takes to get a scholarship the summer before his senior season to a freak that ended his senior season the #2 rated player in the country. That's an exception, not a rule.

Think big picture when looking at recruiting. There's always an exception (tom Brady in the 6th round), but when you look around the NFL, almost all of the quality or promising QBs are 1st round picks.

Stars don't matter unless they are accurately rated. True story.

And on your first point, of course that's the case bc there are only 300 combined four and five star kids a year. There are tens of thousands three stars and below. The overwhelming majority of all conference/all American/NFL players were 3 star or below. And, if you were a pro bowler this year, you were just as likely to be a 3 star or below as you were 4-5 star.

[CadaverDawg]

Stars don't matter unless they are accurately rated. True story.

And on your first point, of course that's the case bc there are only 300 combined four and five star kids a year. There are tens of thousands three stars and below. The overwhelming majority of all conference/all American/NFL players were 3 star or below. And, if you were a pro bowler this year, you were just as likely to be a 3 star or below as you were 4-5 star.

Boom

[You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to confucius say again.]

[dawgs]

Stars don't matter unless they are accurately rated. True story.

And on your first point, of course that's the case bc there are only 300 combined four and five star kids a year. There are tens of thousands three stars and below. The overwhelming majority of all conference/all American/NFL players were 3 star or below. And, if you were a pro bowler this year, you were just as likely to be a 3 star or below as you were 4-5 star.

Sure maybe half the pro bowlers any given year were former unranked/2*/3* guys and half were 4*-5* guys. But if you think there being only ~300 4-5* kids compared to 1000+ 3* and lower kids disproves my point, then you are wrong. I said the %. The point being, if you sign 4-5* guys exclusively and do some good scouting of your own and backgrounds on the 4-5* guys, you probably have a better than 50% chance of landing a quality CFB starter that'll help you win games. If you have a bunch of 3* guys, then you have to identify the right 3* guys, and even then, having a 50% success rate on 3* guys would be crazy good. And a lot of those 3* successes we've found under Mullen still wouldn't start for bama or lsu or f$u or whoever else is consistently signing top 10 classes. Many of those guys are still good for us and decent college players, but this idea that you can repeatedly nail the <5% of 2-3* guys that perform like 50% of the 4-5* is a pipe dream. The reality is that it's such a low % that become studs and that most college programs are filling a majority of their classes with 2-3* guys, that the ones that do become studs are spread across so many different programs, those programs relying on 2-3* guys still don't have the firepower to win a title despite their 1-2 3* studs in a class when bama and lsu and the like have a much higher hit rate on their 4-5* laden classes.

if someone tells you that (a) you can pick 25 guys out of 1000+ player pool and of that 1000+ player pool, ~10% will end up performing like 4-5* guys in college, or alternatively (b) you can pick 25 guys from a 300 player pool, of which ~50% will end up performing like 4-5* guys in college, which choice do you make? That's not to say it's impossible for choice (a) to end up with better results than choice (b), but it's against the odds that (a) consistently outperforms (b). even if in the macro sense, there are more total players from pool (a) that end up performing like 4-5* guys than in pool (b), your odds are better with player pool (b).

[dawgs]

This is misleading. Yes there's a higher percentage of 4-5* that make the NFL than 3* but you also have to consider there's way more guys rated 3* than there are 4-5* guys. So if 10 outta 100 4-5* make the NFL and 19 outta 200 3* make the NFL guess what. The 4-5* have a higher percentage. There should be a higher percentage anyways unless every recruiting site sucks total ass and can't identify the best 100-300 players despite being able to just piggyback off of ESPN, Nike, Under Armour, Adidas etc.. and watching who every top football coach recruits.

Unless a coach is just way better at identifying talent than every other coach, the odds of landing all 9 of the 3* guys that develop into NFL caliber players in your hypo is very slim. Especially considering that way more programs are filling a majority of their classes with 3* guys than 4-5* guys. So while a 4-5* guy may have 5 blue blood programs battling over him, many non-elite programs aren't even wasting their time unless they have an in (local, parent alumni, etc). But with 3*, you maybe have 50 programs that feel like they have a realistic shot, so those guys get spread pretty thin.

[Dawg61]

Unless a coach is just way better at identifying talent than every other coach, the odds of landing all 9 of the 3* guys that develop into NFL caliber players in your hypo is very slim. Especially considering that way more programs are filling a majority of their classes with 3* guys than 4-5* guys. So while a 4-5* guy may have 5 blue blood programs battling over him, many non-elite programs aren't even wasting their time unless they have an in (local, parent alumni, etc). But with 3*, you maybe have 50 programs that feel like they have a realistic shot, so those guys get spread pretty thin.

Yup and that's exactly why it is imperative that we are able to develop our players into NFL caliber players and we are actually doing a pretty decent job at that imo.

[sleepy dawg]

Seems like we would need to sign more out of state recruits to get any higher. Am I'm wrong on that assumption?

I'm talking football.

I have a hard time saying 16 is our ceiling, although it does appear to be a very difficult number for us to get to. What was our top 25 ranking ceiling a few years back? Was it #1? If it wasn't, then whatever ceiling you had in mind was wrong and 16 for recruiting is probably wrong too.

The recruiting rankings, like top 25 rankings are done by people and are completely subjective, so who knows where we could potentially end up. Looking back, we were very unlikely to be the best team in the country that year, but for a little while it seemed like we were.... So I see the question more like this: Will there ever be a day where the people who happen to be reporting recruiting rankings for a given website, most of who only watch some highlights and clips of highschool games and watch very few actual games, ever think it seems like maybe we signed the 15th best or better group of guys? I would have to say it seems possible.

[TUSK]

Stars don't matter unless they are accurately rated. True story.

And on your first point, of course that's the case bc there are only 300 combined four and five star kids a year. There are tens of thousands three stars and below. The overwhelming majority of all conference/all American/NFL players were 3 star or below. And, if you were a pro bowler this year, you were just as likely to be a 3 star or below as you were 4-5 star.

This begs the query.... "Does anything matter unless accurately rated?"

[TUSK]

Sure maybe half the pro bowlers any given year were former unranked/2*/3* guys and half were 4*-5* guys. But if you think there being only ~300 4-5* kids compared to 1000+ 3* and lower kids disproves my point, then you are wrong. I said the %. The point being, if you sign 4-5* guys exclusively and do some good scouting of your own and backgrounds on the 4-5* guys, you probably have a better than 50% chance of landing a quality CFB starter that'll help you win games. If you have a bunch of 3* guys, then you have to identify the right 3* guys, and even then, having a 50% success rate on 3* guys would be crazy good. And a lot of those 3* successes we've found under Mullen still wouldn't start for bama or lsu or f$u or whoever else is consistently signing top 10 classes. Many of those guys are still good for us and decent college players, but this idea that you can repeatedly nail the <5% of 2-3* guys that perform like 50% of the 4-5* is a pipe dream. The reality is that it's such a low % that become studs and that most college programs are filling a majority of their classes with 2-3* guys, that the ones that do become studs are spread across so many different programs, those programs relying on 2-3* guys still don't have the firepower to win a title despite their 1-2 3* studs in a class when bama and lsu and the like have a much higher hit rate on their 4-5* laden classes.

if someone tells you that (a) you can pick 25 guys out of 1000+ player pool and of that 1000+ player pool, ~10% will end up performing like 4-5* guys in college, or alternatively (b) you can pick 25 guys from a 300 player pool, of which ~50% will end up performing like 4-5* guys in college, which choice do you make? That's not to say it's impossible for choice (a) to end up with better results than choice (b), but it's against the odds that (a) consistently outperforms (b). even if in the macro sense, there are more total players from pool (a) that end up performing like 4-5* guys than in pool (b), your odds are better with player pool (b).

While I know this is correct... I will defer to Boom for "statistical" confirmation...*

[HSVDawg]

Recruiting rankings aren't garbage. The % of 4* and 5* kids that becomes quality starters/all-conf/all-American/NFL draft picks/quality NFL players is much higher than the % of 3* and 2*.

The question isn't whether recruiting rankings are mostly accurate (they are). The question is are players rated highly because of high profile offers or do players get high profile offers because they are rated highly? I happen to think it's the former of those two scenarios. Your statement above, put another way, could say "the % of kids from Alabama, LSU, FSU, OSU, Clemson, etc. that receive accolades and becone NFL players is much higher than the percentage of kids from Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and Temple". And anyone's response would be "well, duh". But those statements are basically synonymous because kids get rated highly when those big time schools offer (not the other way around). Chris Jones is an absolutely perfect example. He was a two star nobody that no one had seen, and we picked him up. Suddenly, he gets a Bama offer then an OM offer and all the sudden he's a 5-star and the #2 player in the country despite being the exact same player as when he was a 2-star.

The ultimate truth is recruiting rankings are accurate, but not on their own merit. They are simply a retroactive assessment of data that already exists in the form of who wants these kids. People who think there is a special skill to ranking recruits probably also think that Joe Lunardi has a psychic ability to predict NCAA tournament teams (which is something literally anyone can do). And of course there are exceptions and contingencies with the "diamond in the rough" types of guys that get limited exposure. But those are called exceptions and contingencies for a reason. You can't build whole classes or groups of classes around those types of players and expect success.

[confucius say]

The question isn't whether recruiting rankings are mostly accurate (they are). The question is are players rated highly because of high profile offers or do players get high profile offers because they are rated highly? I happen to think it's the former of those two scenarios. Your statement above, put another way, could say "the % of kids from Alabama, LSU, FSU, OSU, Clemson, etc. that receive accolades and becone NFL players is much higher than the percentage of kids from Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and Temple". And anyone's response would be "well, duh". But those statements are basically synonymous because kids get rated highly when those big time schools offer (not the other way around). Chris Jones is an absolutely perfect example. He was a two star nobody that no one had seen, and we picked him up. Suddenly, he gets a Bama offer then an OM offer and all the sudden he's a 5-star and the #2 player in the country despite being the exact same player as when he was a 2-star.

The ultimate truth is recruiting rankings are accurate, but not on their own merit. They are simply a retroactive assessment of data that already exists in the form of who wants these kids. People who think there is a special skill to ranking recruits probably also think that Joe Lunardi has a psychic ability to predict NCAA tournament teams (which is something literally anyone can do). And of course there are exceptions and contingencies with the "diamond in the rough" types of guys that get limited exposure. But those are called exceptions and contingencies for a reason. You can't build whole classes or groups of classes around those types of players and expect success.

If recruiting rankings were accurate, all players in the NFL would be 4/5 stars (there are 300 of them per year). It's like bobby Bowden said, he started going down at FSU when he started signing "stars" instead of football players.

[confucius say]

The question isn't whether recruiting rankings are mostly accurate (they are). The question is are players rated highly because of high profile offers or do players get high profile offers because they are rated highly? I happen to think it's the former of those two scenarios. Your statement above, put another way, could say "the % of kids from Alabama, LSU, FSU, OSU, Clemson, etc. that receive accolades and becone NFL players is much higher than the percentage of kids from Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and Temple". And anyone's response would be "well, duh". But those statements are basically synonymous because kids get rated highly when those big time schools offer (not the other way around). Chris Jones is an absolutely perfect example. He was a two star nobody that no one had seen, and we picked him up. Suddenly, he gets a Bama offer then an OM offer and all the sudden he's a 5-star and the #2 player in the country despite being the exact same player as when he was a 2-star.

The ultimate truth is recruiting rankings are accurate, but not on their own merit. They are simply a retroactive assessment of data that already exists in the form of who wants these kids. People who think there is a special skill to ranking recruits probably also think that Joe Lunardi has a psychic ability to predict NCAA tournament teams (which is something literally anyone can do). And of course there are exceptions and contingencies with the "diamond in the rough" types of guys that get limited exposure. But those are called exceptions and contingencies for a reason. You can't build whole classes or groups of classes around those types of players and expect success.

Regarding last sentence: you can if you can evaluate talent (mich st, wash, Stanford, Louisville, tcu, Baylor, Wisconsin). If recruiting rankings were always right, Lsu and auburn and tenn and Aggie would be 10-2 every year. You think the reason we best aggie's butt last year was bc Mullen knows exponentially more football than sumlin? Or could it be that 2-3 star fitz is a hell of a better player than all the 4-5 stars Aggie signed (Murray, Allen, knight)?

[Jack Lambert]

Regarding last sentence: you can if you can evaluate talent (mich st, wash, Stanford, Louisville, tcu, Baylor, Wisconsin). If recruiting rankings were always right, Lsu and auburn and tenn and Aggie would be 10-2 every year. You think the reason we best aggie's butt last year was bc Mullen knows exponentially more football than sumlin? Or could it be that 2-3 star fitz is a hell of a better player than all the 4-5 stars Aggie signed (Murray, Allen, knight)?

I do agree but put Saban at A&M with the same A&M Roster they win the NC. Also give Mullen the same talent and State finish second in the West every year and once every four years actually win The West. As bad as many of you think Mullen is bad he is still the second best coach in the SEC. The coaching sucks in the SEC.

[IMissJack]

Regarding last sentence: you can if you can evaluate talent (mich st, wash, Stanford, Louisville, tcu, Baylor, Wisconsin). If recruiting rankings were always right, Lsu and auburn and tenn and Aggie would be 10-2 every year. You think the reason we best aggie's butt last year was bc Mullen knows exponentially more football than sumlin? Or could it be that 2-3 star fitz is a hell of a better player than all the 4-5 stars Aggie signed (Murray, Allen, knight)?

Both perhaps?

[confucius say]

Both perhaps?

Perhaps. Only adds to my point though. Stars, even if accurate, still get you beat if your coach sucks.

[Reason2succeed]

Recruiting mags and websites are all about cash and clicks which means schools with large canvases will always win those contests. Once again the only thing I will ever measure Mullen on is wins and losses. He gets to buy the groceries since he has to make the gumbo. Put whatever you want in there as long as it is good.

[dawgs]

If recruiting rankings were accurate, all players in the NFL would be 4/5 stars (there are 300 of them per year). It's like bobby Bowden said, he started going down at FSU when he started signing "stars" instead of football players.

No, that's an unreasonable expectation of success to argue that because the NFL isn't comprised entirely of only 4-5* recruits that the system is inaccurate. You don't understand how to view recruiting stars if that's how you look at it.

[dawgs]

The question isn't whether recruiting rankings are mostly accurate (they are). The question is are players rated highly because of high profile offers or do players get high profile offers because they are rated highly? I happen to think it's the former of those two scenarios. Your statement above, put another way, could say "the % of kids from Alabama, LSU, FSU, OSU, Clemson, etc. that receive accolades and becone NFL players is much higher than the percentage of kids from Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and Temple". And anyone's response would be "well, duh". But those statements are basically synonymous because kids get rated highly when those big time schools offer (not the other way around). Chris Jones is an absolutely perfect example. He was a two star nobody that no one had seen, and we picked him up. Suddenly, he gets a Bama offer then an OM offer and all the sudden he's a 5-star and the #2 player in the country despite being the exact same player as when he was a 2-star.

The ultimate truth is recruiting rankings are accurate, but not on their own merit. They are simply a retroactive assessment of data that already exists in the form of who wants these kids. People who think there is a special skill to ranking recruits probably also think that Joe Lunardi has a psychic ability to predict NCAA tournament teams (which is something literally anyone can do). And of course there are exceptions and contingencies with the "diamond in the rough" types of guys that get limited exposure. But those are called exceptions and contingencies for a reason. You can't build whole classes or groups of classes around those types of players and expect success.

Well sure, there's some circular reasoning in there. But when bama, Ohio st, Michigan, USC, f$u, etc. are after a kid, you can safely assume that kid is better than most every other recruit out there. It's not a coincidence that the top 10 most seasons end up being similar to the top 10 recruiting programs over the previous 3-4 seasons. I think every team that's played for a national title since the BCS began and recruiting sites gained traction has averaged a top 10 class over the previous 4 seasons except Oregon (twice), auburn in 2010, and maybe 1 other program. And those programs all averaged in the top 15. So clearly recruiting at a high level, whether independently rated without considering offers or whether offers factor into the ratings, is a good indicator of who will be competing for a trophy at the end of the season.

[Political Hack]

Bama signs a kid and he goes to the NFL. Chances he's a 4-5*, are pretty close to 100%.

Utah signs a kid and he goes to the NFL. Chances he's a 4-5*, are pretty close to 0%.

The "evaluators" look at offers. Are they committable? How many do they have? Who are they from? That dictates the stars. The networks don't have enough people to go get 100's of sets of eyes on every recruit. Sure, they can watch film but there's a lot you can't tell from film. Main point being, who you are offered by dictates your rating more than your skill set does. If these guys were great talent evaluators, they'd be working for a college or NFL GM. Y'all think the Patriots are calling Rosebowl or Yancey for an evaluation?

[dawgs]

Bama signs a kid and he goes to the NFL. Chances he's a 4-5*, are pretty close to 100%.

Utah signs a kid and he goes to the NFL. Chances he's a 4-5*, are pretty close to 0%.

The "evaluators" look at offers. Are they commutable? How many do they have? Who are they from? That dictates the stars. The networks don't have enough people to go et 100's of sets of eyes on every recruit. Sure, they can watch film but there's a lot you can't tell from film. Main point being, whonyou are offered by dictates your rating more than your skill set does. If these guys were great talent evaluators, they'd be working for a college or NFL GM. Y'all think the Patriots are calling Rosebowl or Yancey for an evaluation?

But bama has had more success than Utah and has produced more NFL players than Utah period, as well as more quality NFL players, and more more NFL 1st round picks. Bama may miss on a handful of 4-5* guys that don't develop for whatever reason and Utah may land a 3* that does develop, or even a couple 3* that develop, but Utah doesn't regularly land enough 3* that develop into 4-5* talent to regularly play as well as bama and the proof is in the results.

If anything, your post proves my point. Utah can uncover a 3* or 2 each cycle that become studs, but it's nearly impossible to find 10+ 3* every cycle that develop into 4-5* studs because the odds are low that 3* turn into 4-5* studs. Bama can miss on half their class and still have 10+ 4-5* studs each cycle because the odds are (relatively) high that a 4-5* recruit ends up playing like a 4-5* stud.

[HoopsDawg]

Are we signing the top players in MS? Are we signing the guys that we have heavily targeted?

That's how you judge our class on signing day.

Wins and losses + draft picks is how you judge recruiting in hindsight.

5 star players matter b/c anyone can identify a 5 star player.

[Ari Gold]

Recruiting flaws again. Murphy should be a consensus 4 star

[confucius say]

No, that's an unreasonable expectation of success to argue that because the NFL isn't comprised entirely of only 4-5* recruits that the system is inaccurate. You don't understand how to view recruiting stars if that's how you look at it.

The NFL isn't even comprised of half 4-5 stars. It's very reasonable to expect recruiting rankings to be more accurate than that.

[confucius say]

Well sure, there's some circular reasoning in there. But when bama, Ohio st, Michigan, USC, f$u, etc. are after a kid, you can safely assume that kid is better than most every other recruit out there. It's not a coincidence that the top 10 most seasons end up being similar to the top 10 recruiting programs over the previous 3-4 seasons. I think every team that's played for a national title since the BCS began and recruiting sites gained traction has averaged a top 10 class over the previous 4 seasons except Oregon (twice), auburn in 2010, and maybe 1 other program. And those programs all averaged in the top 15. So clearly recruiting at a high level, whether independently rated without considering offers or whether offers factor into the ratings, is a good indicator of who will be competing for a trophy at the end of the season.

For every program you can name whose w-l record tracks their recruiting rankings, I can name at least that many whose don't.

[dawgs]

The NFL isn't even comprised of half 4-5 stars. It's very reasonable to expect recruiting rankings to be more accurate than that.

You are still missing the point of stars. The stars are a gauge to judge the likelihood a guy turns into a stud. 5* guys have the best chance, then 4*, then 3*, then 2*, and finally unranked guys. There's a ton of potholes along the way between signing day and the NFL draft that can alter a guy's path. Maybe he got injured, maybe his body never developed any further, maybe he got too preoccupied with beer and college girls, maybe he had a personality clash with the coach, maybe the system changed and he didn't fit. There's lots of variables that are impossible to gauge on guys, which is why "the NFL isn't even comprised of half 4-5 stars". Do you think saban is a great recruiter and coach? And that saban gets the best results in CFB? Most consider him the best at what he does, and the ones that don't are morons. Yet even saban doesn't get half his 4-5* guys from signing day to the NFL, and he's the most successful guy in the world at his job for getting guys from signing day to the NFL. In other words you are still placing unreasonable expectations on recruiting rankings.

[confucius say]

You are still missing the point of stars. The stars are a gauge to judge the likelihood a guy turns into a stud. 5* guys have the best chance, then 4*, then 3*, then 2*, and finally unranked guys. There's a ton of potholes along the way between signing day and the NFL draft that can alter a guy's path. Maybe he got injured, maybe his body never developed any further, maybe he got too preoccupied with beer and college girls, maybe he had a personality clash with the coach, maybe the system changed and he didn't fit. There's lots of variables that are impossible to gauge on guys, which is why "the NFL isn't even comprised of half 4-5 stars". Do you think saban is a great recruiter and coach? And that saban gets the best results in CFB? Most consider him the best at what he does, and the ones that don't are morons. Yet even saban doesn't get half his 4-5* guys from signing day to the NFL, and he's the most successful guy in the world at his job for getting guys from signing day to the NFL. In other words you are still placing unreasonable expectations on recruiting rankings.

Link to support that stars are a gauge to determine likelihood that a guy turns into a stud? I think they are a prediction of how good a player will be (i.e., 5's will be studs, 4's will be very good, 3's will be average, 2's will hold a tackling dummy).

[sandwolf]

Link to support that stars are a gauge to determine likelihood that a guy turns into a stud? I think they are a prediction of how good a player will be (i.e., 5's will be studs, 4's will be very good, 3's will be average, 2's will hold a tackling dummy).You are just being stubborn at this point.

Obviously recruiting rankings aren't an exact science, but they are a pretty good measure as to the likelihood of a prospect panning out.....and every year the NFL draft proves that the higher the star rating, the higher the chances of being drafted. Of course there are exceptions, but in general the more stars the better. I honestly can't believe that people still feel like this is a debatable topic.

[dawgs]

For every program you can name whose w-l record tracks their recruiting rankings, I can name at least that many whose don't.

I didn't say W/L, I said top 10. Most seasons, 7-8 of the top 10 correspond with the top 10 recruiting programs over the prior 4 seasons. Once you get down around 12-15, recruiting classes get a lot more even. The difference between 15 and 30 is usually pretty negligible and there's definitely not enough top end (4-5*) signees in the 15th rated class to give them an assurance that the class will be a success. So therefore, outside of the top 10 most years, the recruiting rankings can vary more. A good system that knows they kinda guys they want/need can win 9 games with 30th rated classes and finish ranked 15th in the country.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2017/2/2/14483388/college-football-recruiting-rankings-2017-multiple-years

http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings

1. Clemson - averaged 12th in recruiting the last 5 years, transcendent QB (basically the model we need to hope for, just enough talent so that if/when we get another dak, we are in better position to make a run, that means moving our recruiting up from the 20-35 range to the 10-20 range on a regular basis.

2. Bama - averaged 1st recruiting

3. USC - averaged 4th

4. Washington - averaged 27th

5. Oklahoma - averaged 14th

6. Ohio st - averaged 2nd

7. Penn st - averaged 21st

8. F$U - averaged 5th

9. Wisconsin - averaged 34th

10. Michigan - averaged 19th

So you ended up with 4 teams from the top 10 in recruiting, 3 more in the top 20, and 2 outliers in Washington and Wisconsin (who always outperforms their recruiting).

Of the recruiting top 10 that didn't finish in the top 10:

13. LSU - averaged 3rd

14. Florida - averaged 10th

24. Auburn - averaged 7th

UGA (averaged 6th) finished 8-5 with a new HC and true freshman QB.

ND (averaged 8th) went thru a meltdown and Brian Kelly kinda sucks.

A&M (averaged 9th) went 8-5 and the HC is on the hot seat.

So of the top 10 recruiting teams (I know that 5 years including 2017, but for quick googling purposes, don't think finding a 2016 list will make much material difference), 4 were top 10, 2 were just outside the top 10, 3 had disappointing seasons at 8-5 (which I would love to get to the point that 8-5 is our disappointing seasons), and 1 had a truly disastrous season. That's what signing the best players do for you, even when you don't catch the breaks, you almost always still manage to have decent seasons, and only rarely do you have a full on meltdown (like ND or Texas a couple years ago). You aren't gonna find that ratio of success if you look at the recruiting rankings from 11-20 or 11-30.

Can we keep recruiting like we are and be a decent program? Absolutely, but if we want to compete for the conference and therefore a playoff spot, we need to up the recruiting game to the mid-teens AND land a transcendent QB (that's what Clemson, auburn, and Oregon did and is probably a reasonable goal for us), or if you want to compete with a non-elite QB, you need to have top 10 classes every year (bama, Michigan, Ohio st route).

[confucius say]

I didn't say W/L, I said top 10. Most seasons, 7-8 of the top 10 correspond with the top 10 recruiting programs over the prior 4 seasons. Once you get down around 12-15, recruiting classes get a lot more even. The difference between 15 and 30 is usually pretty negligible and there's definitely not enough top end (4-5*) signees in the 15th rated class to give them an assurance that the class will be a success. So therefore, outside of the top 10 most years, the recruiting rankings can vary more. A good system that knows they kinda guys they want/need can win 9 games with 30th rated classes and finish ranked 15th in the country.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2017/2/2/14483388/college-football-recruiting-rankings-2017-multiple-years

http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings

1. Clemson - averaged 12th in recruiting the last 5 years, transcendent QB (basically the model we need to hope for, just enough talent so that if/when we get another dak, we are in better position to make a run, that means moving our recruiting up from the 20-35 range to the 10-20 range on a regular basis.

2. Bama - averaged 1st recruiting

3. USC - averaged 4th

4. Washington - averaged 27th

5. Oklahoma - averaged 14th

6. Ohio st - averaged 2nd

7. Penn st - averaged 21st

8. F$U - averaged 5th

9. Wisconsin - averaged 34th

10. Michigan - averaged 19th

So you ended up with 4 teams from the top 10 in recruiting, 3 more in the top 20, and 2 outliers in Washington and Wisconsin (who always outperforms their recruiting).

Of the recruiting top 10 that didn't finish in the top 10:

13. LSU - averaged 3rd

14. Florida - averaged 10th

24. Auburn - averaged 7th

UGA (averaged 6th) finished 8-5 with a new HC and true freshman QB.

ND (averaged 8th) went thru a meltdown and Brian Kelly kinda sucks.

A&M (averaged 9th) went 8-5 and the HC is on the hot seat.

So of the top 10 recruiting teams (I know that 5 years including 2017, but for quick googling purposes, don't think finding a 2016 list will make much material difference), 4 were top 10, 2 were just outside the top 10, 3 had disappointing seasons at 8-5 (which I would love to get to the point that 8-5 is our disappointing seasons), and 1 had a truly disastrous season. That's what signing the best players do for you, even when you don't catch the breaks, you almost always still manage to have decent seasons, and only rarely do you have a full on meltdown (like ND or Texas a couple years ago). You aren't gonna find that ratio of success if you look at the recruiting rankings from 11-20 or 11-30.

Can we keep recruiting like we are and be a decent program? Absolutely, but if we want to compete for the conference and therefore a playoff spot, we need to up the recruiting game to the mid-teens AND land a transcendent QB (that's what Clemson, auburn, and Oregon did and is probably a reasonable goal for us), or if you want to compete with a non-elite QB, you need to have top 10 classes every year (bama, Michigan, Ohio st route).

1. The accuracy of recruiting rankings cannot be judged by just looking at the top 10 out of 128 teams.

2. Even so, of the top ten recruiters, 6 were not top ten teams, 3 were average (8-5), and 1 sucked. In other words, 40%, or almost half of top ten recruiters, were average or below. Doesn't sound like rankings are accurate predictors of success to me.

3. I'm not arguing you can win a national title by signing 3 stars. I'm arguing recruiting rankings, on the whole, are not very accurate.

[confucius say]

You are just being stubborn at this point.

Obviously recruiting rankings aren't an exact science, but they are a pretty good measure as to the likelihood of a prospect panning out.....and every year the NFL draft proves that the higher the star rating, the higher the chances of being drafted. Of course there are exceptions, but in general the more stars the better. I honestly can't believe that people still feel like this is a debatable topic.

No, they are not a pretty good measure. A 89 on 247 is just as likely as a 91 to be a great player.

[dawgs]

No, they are not a pretty good measure. A 89 on 247 is just as likely as a 91 to be a great player.

Yes, that is correct in a vacuum. The difference in an individual 90 and an individual 89 doesn't bother me. But you gotta look big picture, you are missing the forest for the trees.

[dawgs]

http://fansided.com/2017/01/30/recruiting-ranking-national-champions/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2613145-do-top-10-recruiting-classes-really-equal-championships

Yeah, recruiting rankings aren't generally predictive at all.

[dawgs]

1. The accuracy of recruiting rankings cannot be judged by just looking at the top 10 out of 128 teams.

2. Even so, of the top ten recruiters, 6 were not top ten teams, 3 were average (8-5), and 1 sucked. In other words, 40%, or almost half of top ten recruiters, were average or below. Doesn't sound like rankings are accurate predictors of success to me.

3. I'm not arguing you can win a national title by signing 3 stars. I'm arguing recruiting rankings, on the whole, are not very accurate.

1) the lower down the rankings, the less exact things are, the more the players look the same, and the more the coach/system comes into play. I already said basically the same ****ing shit in this thread.

2) it doesn't help that a lot of the sec teams beat each other to end up 8-5.

3) if you can't win a natty by signing mostly 3*, then that seems to prove that on a macro level, recruiting rankings are relatively accurate.

[Dawg61]

if you can't win a natty by signing mostly 3*, then that seems to prove that on a macro level, recruiting rankings are relatively accurate.

We'll never know because that would require a team that isn't preseason top 20 having a cinderella season and winning the whole thing. The top 15 programs influence the star rating by who they recruit/sign. You know that's a fact so don't argue it. If you took our entire signing class and had Bama sign the exact same players almost every single one of them would see a big jump in their rating simply for the fact that Bama signed them. Your argument is flawed because the system is flawed. The only way it could not be flawed is if you never allowed the people rating the players to see/know who is recruiting them and that's impossible so flawed it'll stay. (btw I didn't read anything on Wall of Text page 2 so sorry if anything I said is redundant)

[confucius say]

1) the lower down the rankings, the less exact things are, the more the players look the same, and the more the coach/system comes into play. I already said basically the same ****ing shit in this thread.

2) it doesn't help that a lot of the sec teams beat each other to end up 8-5.

3) if you can't win a natty by signing mostly 3*, then that seems to prove that on a macro level, recruiting rankings are relatively accurate.

1. So it seems you agree with my only point, which is, as a whole, things are not very exact (or accurate)-only the rankings of the top 10 recruiters are accurate. If that's your position, I can agree with that.

2. Don't make excuses for the recruiting rankings.

3. No, that would be a micro level. You are limiting the accuracy of recruiting rankings to premier recruits and teams. I'm judging them as a whole, or on a macro level.

[dawgs]

We'll never know because that would require a team that isn't preseason top 20 having a cinderella season and winning the whole thing. The top 15 programs influence the star rating by who they recruit/sign. You know that's a fact so don't argue it. If you took our entire signing class and had Bama sign the exact same players almost every single one of them would see a big jump in their rating simply for the fact that Bama signed them. Your argument is flawed because the system is flawed. The only way it could not be flawed is if you never allowed the people rating the players to see/know who is recruiting them and that's impossible so flawed it'll stay. (btw I didn't read anything on Wall of Text page 2 so sorry if anything I said is redundant)

So do guys that sign with bama perform or not? I'm confused? It seems to me that if nick saban wants a guy, then chances are the guy is a stud. So yes, there is some circular logic that goes into recruiting rankings, but it also is a pretty damn good measurement for determining the program's that will be competing for conference titles and playoff spots. Whether it's a completely 100% independent evaluation or whether it's influenced by which coaches are offering which players, ultimately it's proven to be a good indicator.

[dawgs]

1. So it seems you agree with my only point, which is, as a whole, things are not very exact (or accurate)-only the rankings of the top 10 recruiters are accurate. If that's your position, I can agree with that.

2. Don't make excuses for the recruiting rankings.

3. No, that would be a micro level. You are limiting the accuracy of recruiting rankings to premier recruits and teams. I'm judging them as a whole, or on a macro level.

It still doesn't change the fact that a 5* has a better chance of panning out than a 4*, and a 4* a better chance than a 3*, and so on and so forth. Now if 2 programs sign 20 3* and 5 4* each and one has an average player ranking of 87 and the other an average player ranking of 86, then there's not much difference in the classes. If you get your targets and guys that fit your system, then that matters more than averaging 1 number higher per player. But if you can get a class with an average of 92 per player, then the odds are significantly better of that class being better than the class averaging 87 or 86 per player.

[BB30]

I also think something being missed with the whole stars thing isn't necessarily just who has offered. I think the area you live in, the size school you play at etc all plays a role. That is why you have seen some of our best players be lowly ranked because they went to schools like East Webster. Not a knock on that school at all just a small school. Some of these kids don't have the $$ to get to combines or camps where these recruiting sites can see them.

Most 5* guys come in way ahead in terms of technique and knowledge of the game due to better coaching etc. I don't know this for a fact but my guess would be that 80-90% of 5* players are coming from large high schools in metro areas. Now obviously not everyone of them will be.

So, yes I agree that landing classes filled with 4 and 5* does up your chances of success not only because of their talent but because they come in and can contribute almost immediately in most cases. Some of the 3*s we sign are coming from a school with a weight room the size of a shed and a coach that coaches multiple sports. They have a much longer development period both physically and mentally than a 4-5* from a metro area high school with 3000-4000 students, a multi million dollar weight room, and a very good group of coaches.

If anyone saw J banks play high school sports, any of them, baseball etc. He was a long lanky athlete that was good at everything he picked up but he wan't developed. He was extremely raw. By the time we get our 3* that have 5* upside ready to contribute we get a year or 2 out of them at the most. And that is not to say that every 3* we sign has that upside. But, a sizable number of them do.

I also think a lot of it depends on the position. It doesn't take quite as much time to develop a WR from a small school as it does an OT.

[dawgs]

If you bring in a 3* that needs developing, there's far more variables that can go wrong between being a rough 3* and a stud player 3-5 years later than brining in a fairly polished 4-5* guy and developing the 4-5* into a stud.

And then, like you said, if our guys avoid the pitfalls and develop into a stud, we have 1-2 years of stud play, whereas a 4-5* that's ready to at least compete as an average P5 player from day 1 and improves from there, the final product may be similar, but the 4-5* guys provide immediate quality depth while they develop while most 3* are just black holes on the roster for a year or 2, or if they are forced to ply, they are clearly not ready and it's apparent on the field. Having that depth is the difference in going 10-3 in 2014 and making the playoffs in 2014.

[Ari Gold]

2019 class in Mississippi has a chance to be the best in state in a long time . It's going to e loaded .
With Umiss bacislly getting scraps by then if we can land a few out of state 4 star guys and get the majority of the instate guys we will land In The top 15 easy
Plus we will have a bigger class in 2019

[Maroon Wizardry]

yay!