Are Recruiting Rankings Ruining College Football?

[ShotgunDawg]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

[Rick Danko]

Interesting topic. I don?t think recruiting rankings are killing college football. I think Bama is killing college football. Like it or not, people are just flat ass sick of them winning over and over. But on top of them, it?s also that it has become pretty clear, there is only about 10 teams in this country that have any damn shot to win it all, and about 6 of them it takes a miracle to be up there. CFB has completely left the have nots in the dust and it will come back to bite the sport eventually.

[Gutter Cobreh]

Poor attendance is due to the ease of watching the game on TV and the cost of attending a game in person.

Even Alabama with all of its success is renovating their stadium to reduce the number of seats and increase higher dollar suites. They're banking on their success continuing, but this sport is cyclical. They won't always be on top, and as such, will there always be a demand to attend their games when they aren't winning? Time will tell, but even they will face an attendance issue at some point.

[ShotgunDawg]

Poor attendance is due to the ease of watching the game on TV and the cost of attending a game in person.

Even Alabama with all of its success is renovating their stadium to reduce the number of seats and increase higher dollar suites. They're banking on their success continuing, but this sport is cyclical. They won't always be on top, and as such, will there always be a demand to attend their games when they aren't winning? Time will tell, but even they will face an attendance issue at some point.

The sport is cyclical?

Could've fooled me. Time to put that narrative to bed.

As for the TV, I agree that has contributed, but I also think the apathy of knowing your team is playing for a crappy bowl has also set in.

[Poindexter]

Not at all. Reduce scholarships to 70 per team. One of the main strengths of the NFL is the parity in the league. But that did not happen by accident, but is the result of league policies. The NFL model promotes healthy competition but is much more socialistic in how it operates compared to MLB or the English Premier League.

[confucius say]

1. Reduce schollies to 70 per team and 20 per year. No exceptions, period. 20.
2. Pay the players a slightly increased stipend.
3. Penalize cheating in a draconian fashion. Make it so harsh that a coach is automatically on the chopping block if the program gets caught.

These things will create parity and, in turn, increase attendance.

[Hot Rock]

It's not recruiting rankings. It's just the natural cycle of life. There are many factors:

Kids today just have so much more to be interested.
Then there it the TV angle and the cost of attending games.

It's not just one thing for sure, but recruiting rankings? Nope, that won't be what does it. Casual fans don't even follow recruiting anyway.

[KOdawg1]

Yes and no. Alabama is ruining football. The rankings just show us how Alabama is ruining football.

[ShotgunDawg]

Yes and no. Alabama is ruining football. The rankings just show us how Alabama is ruining football.

I think this is well said. It's not so much the recruiting rankings as much as being educated on just how little chance you have. It really makes you ask what the point is

[ShotgunDawg]

1. Reduce schollies to 70 per team and 20 per year. No exceptions, period. 20.
2. Pay the players a slightly increased stipend.
3. Penalize cheating in a draconian fashion. Make it so harsh that a coach is automatically on the chopping block if the program gets caught.

These things will create parity and, in turn, increase attendance.

I agree. For whatever reason though, people want to blame the lack of attendance on everything but that fact that the games mostly suck & aren't competitive

[ShotgunDawg]

It's not recruiting rankings. It's just the natural cycle of life. There are many factors:

Kids today just have so much more to be interested.
Then there it the TV angle and the cost of attending games.

It's not just one thing for sure, but recruiting rankings? Nope, that won't be what does it. Casual fans don't even follow recruiting anyway.

Many casual fans don't follow recruiting, but the talent discrepancies do create the hype or lack thereof that do get back to the casual fan.

[Dawgcap]

I posted on another site. Isn’t it funny how basketball and baseball have many teams that can play with the big boys based on scholarships limatations but in a sport with higher scholarships the big boys accrue the talent. Football is the moneymaker for the NCAA so the scholarships are higher. That’s why there is a disparity because the media sells the big programs and then we wonder why a guy chooses certain schools in our conference. Players are pushed to the big time schools by recruiting services and ESPN.

[ShotgunDawg]

I posted on another site. Isn’t it funny how basketball and baseball have many teams that can play with the big boys based on scholarships limatations but in a sport with higher scholarships the big boys accrue the talent. Football is the moneymaker for the NCAA so the scholarships are higher. That’s why there is a disparity because the media sells the big programs and then we wonder why a guy chooses certain schools in our conference. Players are pushed to the big time schools by recruiting services and ESPN.

Also the nature of basketball & baseball are that lesser teams can win more often.

The football situation won't be fixed until the games are more competitive.

The media pushed the blue bloods, but in the long run, it's going to cost them. The NFL is better & more profitable with more teams in contention, which in return, equals more die-hard fans of the non-large market teams

[TaleofTwoDogs]

Let's take a look at who has been recognized as the national champion by the NCAA since 1933 (the year the SEC was established). In the last 20 years 11 teams have claimed a natty, Since 1933, 29 teams have claimed the crown. There were also 17 other teams that can claim a natty since 1933 due to split polls before the BCS & CFP. Case in point Ole Miss in 1960. Alabama's dominance can be traced back to 2 major factors - their coaches, Saban and the Bear. Recruiting ranking may have distorted the program building process somewhat but it is the masterful work of the head coach that probably is the real difference maker.


source: NCAA
Authority: CFP, BCS & AP


Last 20 years - 11 different teams
YEAR SCHOOL SOURCE
2018 Clemson CFP
2017 Alabama CFP
2016 Clemson CFP
2015 Alabama CFP
2014 Ohio State CFP
2013 Flor State BCS
2012 Alabama BCS
2011 Alabama BCS
2010 Auburn BCS
2009 Alabama BCS
2008 Florida BCS
2007 La State BCS
2006 Florida BCS
2005 Texas BCS
2004 USC BCS
2003 La State BCS,
2002 Ohio State BCS
2001 Miami BCS
2000 Oklahoma BCS
1999 Flor State BCS


RANK SCHOOL NATTYs
1 Alabama 10
2 Notre Dame 8
3 Minnesota 6
4 Oklahoma 6
5 Ohio St. 5
6 USC 5
7 Miami (Fla.) 4
8 Nebraska 4
9 Clemson 3
10 Florida 3
11 Florida St. 3
12 Louisiana State 3
13 Michigan 3
14 Texas 3
15 Army 2
16 Michigan St. 2
17 Penn St. 2
18 Pittsburgh 2
19 Tennessee 2
20 Auburn 1
21 Brigham Young 1
22 Georgia 1
23 Georgia Tech 1
24 Maryland 1
25 Syracuse 1
26 Texas A&M 1
27 Texas Christian 1
28 UCLA 1
29 Washington 1

Total Championship Years 86

[Dawgcap]

Also the nature of basketball & baseball are that lesser teams can win more often.

The football situation won't be fixed until the games are more competitive.

The media pushed the blue bloods, but in the long run, it's going to cost them. The NFL is better & more profitable with more teams in contention, which in return, equals more die-hard fans of the non-large market teams
And that’s my point because recruits are led to believe the only way to a professional contact is by going to a big time contract. And I’m not dumb enough to believe that handlers of these players aren’t selling this to players. If they have done it for college basketball you can damn well believe that the big boys in college football aren’t utilizing the same strategy. Why do guys go to Alabama or other schools to sit for 2 years unless they are bought. Sad thing is so many are processed when someone else comes along. In other sports you can’t waste a scholarship so the playing field is a little more balanced.
Sports are a sad situation because we have not realized that their are people getting rich that shouldn’t. Kinda like politics

[CadaverDawg]

I used to attend so many games, but now I can homegate with friends/family and watch football from morning until midnight, cook on the grill, drink, etc....whereas when I used to attend the games weekly my whole day was devoted to that 1 game, and you had to see highlights to find out what happened in the rest of the games. Yes it's cheaper, but more importantly it is convenient and you get more entertainment on your Saturday at home than you would attending the game. I hate hearing myself say it, bc I want us to have great attendance....but with a family, I can't just pick up every fall Saturday and spend one of my two days a week off work at a game. By being at home I can knock out honey do list items and household responsibilities before the games start, and still have a fun weekend too. Is what it is

[Dawgcap]

I used to attend so many games, but now I can homegate with friends/family and watch football from morning until midnight, cook on the grill, drink, etc....whereas when I used to attend the games weekly my whole day was devoted to that 1 game, and you had to see highlights to find out what happened in the rest of the games. Yes it's cheaper, but more importantly it is convenient and you get more entertainment on your Saturday at home than you would attending the game. I hate hearing myself say it, bc I want us to have great attendance....but with a family, I can't just pick up every fall Saturday and spend one of my two days a week off work at a game. By being at home I can knock out honey do list items and household responsibilities before the games start, and still have a fun weekend too. Is what it is
I gave up season tkts after my daughter was about 3. Did the same thing. Loved being a fan while at home, and yes I respect everyone who is a fan at the house. We went to games off and on but I remember my daughter being a fan but not sure why. We went down to the Auburn game and I talked a guy into selling us tkts for $300 for 2 tkts. Scalpers offered him $350. I wanted my daughter in that game that day like I was the first time I fell in love with State when we beat LSU under the temporary lights. Huge upset and I was hooked! After the Auburn win my daughter was Maroon. Never pushed her! Anyway she is graduating this year and heading to Lipscomb for PA school. Son headed to Starkville in the fall as a freshman. Long story is I’m proud where my family is but we wouldn’t have got there unless we familygated at home. Love Maroon at home it pays off later

[Todd4State]

I used to attend so many games, but now I can homegate with friends/family and watch football from morning until midnight, cook on the grill, drink, etc....whereas when I used to attend the games weekly my whole day was devoted to that 1 game, and you had to see highlights to find out what happened in the rest of the games. Yes it's cheaper, but more importantly it is convenient and you get more entertainment on your Saturday at home than you would attending the game. I hate hearing myself say it, bc I want us to have great attendance....but with a family, I can't just pick up every fall Saturday and spend one of my two days a week off work at a game. By being at home I can knock out honey do list items and household responsibilities before the games start, and still have a fun weekend too. Is what it is

It is VERY inconvenient to go to a game. If you live in Jackson you have to drive two hours, probably most people want to do the tailgating thing which takes a few hours or so depending on how much you're into that, then watch a three hour game, and then drive back through the night in Mississippi- I typically don't make it back until midnight. You're talking about 10-12 hours or so between driving, tailgating for two hours and watching the game.


I think the other thing that really hurts too is I think a lot of people honestly feel like on some level that the officials are either so biased or incompetent that schools like MSU are never going to do better than 10-2 without a championship that I think a lot of people have gotten frustrated with the product and frustration over something that they can't control which appears to be "rigged" and have just said- forget it. It's not worth it. But I also think that we're not the only school in the league that feels that way- Kentucky, Arkansas, South Carolina, and etc. and probably about half the league.


That along with the modern conveniences have hurt I think.


Maybe when the Jetson's are around we can teleport to Starkville while having access to watch other games while AT the MSU game. I'll be dead by the time that happens though.

[Todd4State]

1. Reduce schollies to 70 per team and 20 per year. No exceptions, period. 20.
2. Pay the players a slightly increased stipend.
3. Penalize cheating in a draconian fashion. Make it so harsh that a coach is automatically on the chopping block if the program gets caught.

These things will create parity and, in turn, increase attendance.

And give some of those 15 scholarships to baseball.

[Jarius]

The recruiting services have made it much easier for the big time coaches to not miss prospects. Back in the pre ranking days, some kids could fly under the radar. Not today. A star in Greenville, MS is known by every coach in America. That has made it easier for the big boy schools to poach talent.

I will always go to games. I don't like the fact that I know we are never going to have a chance at a National Title barring a miracle, but I still love my team and I have more fun at the game than I do at home. I also have a place to stay every week for free in Starkville so I don't have to drive back to Jackson. To prevent only seeing one game a week (the MSU game I attend), I go to Bulldog Burger or BWW in Starkville and do my pregame there. The junction is packed and I would rather watch football than socialize. I used to buy the tailgate package where they set up and take down the tailgate / tv for you but it's easier to just go to a restaurant. I have young kids and "junctioning" all day is a pain in the ass with toddlers.

The scholarship reduction idea makes too much sense for the NCAA to do. Take away 15/20 scholarships and give them to baseball. Without getting too political, it will turn into a "racism" issue of taking education opportunities away from black athletes and giving it to a sport where it is predominantly white playing. It won't happen, but it should. It would make football more competitive and would make the absolutely ridiculous scholarship issue with baseball go away.

[Gutter Cobreh]

The sport is cyclical?

Could've fooled me. Time to put that narrative to bed.

As for the TV, I agree that has contributed, but I also think the apathy of knowing your team is playing for a crappy bowl has also set in.





U]Last 20 years - 11 different teams [/U]
YEAR SCHOOL SOURCE
2018 Clemson CFP
2017 Alabama CFP
2016 Clemson CFP
2015 Alabama CFP
2014 Ohio State CFP
2013 Flor State BCS
2012 Alabama BCS
2011 Alabama BCS
2010 Auburn BCS
2009 Alabama BCS
2008 Florida BCS
2007 La State BCS
2006 Florida BCS
2005 Texas BCS
2004 USC BCS
2003 La State BCS,
2002 Ohio State BCS
2001 Miami BCS
2000 Oklahoma BCS
1999 Flor State BCS

Just because the team you root for hasn't won a title doesn't mean the sport isn't cyclical. I don't remember Bama winning championships under Duboise or Shula. As Tale pointed out, 11 different teams have won it in the past 20 years.

[maroonmania]

Not at all. Reduce scholarships to 70 per team. One of the main strengths of the NFL is the parity in the league. But that did not happen by accident, but is the result of league policies. The NFL model promotes healthy competition but is much more socialistic in how it operates compared to MLB or the English Premier League.

Unfortunately though, in college, you can't make the top recruit sign with the worst D1 football team from the past season. Not only that, this easing up on transferring where it now seems like the majority don't even have to sit out a year, is only going to make things worse. Guys that couldn't get an offer from Bama out of HS but then prove themselves on the college level will now be welcomed at Bama with a scholarship via transfer and likely won't even have to sit out a year. So now the top programs can not only sign the highest rated recruits out of HS, but can also cherry pick transfers from other D1 football programs. Its like the best programs will get the #1 draft picks every year plus have the advantages in "free agency" as well. Basically its disgusting to how the rich will only get richer.

[BeastMan]

No. Manipulated subjective rankings heavily weighted by fan sites subs is not killing football.

[fader2103]

Poor attendance is due to the ease of watching the game on TV and the cost of attending a game in person.

Even Alabama with all of its success is renovating their stadium to reduce the number of seats and increase higher dollar suites. They're banking on their success continuing, but this sport is cyclical. They won't always be on top, and as such, will there always be a demand to attend their games when they aren't winning? Time will tell, but even they will face an attendance issue at some point.

This guy gets it. The SEC network and other conference affiliated channels are truly ruining football attendance.

As someone who has a growing family, it is easier for me to just watch my football at home than driving up to Starkville and back, throwing out at least 300 dollars on a trip for 4 with tickets, food, drinks, and gas money.

[ShotgunDawg]

No. Manipulated subjective rankings heavily weighted by fan sites subs is not killing football.

While what you say is true. It's pretty well established that you have to recruit at a certain level to have a chance.

[MedDawg]

Let's take a look at who has been recognized as the national champion by the NCAA since 1933 (the year the SEC was established). In the last 20 years 11 teams have claimed a natty, Since 1933, 29 teams have claimed the crown. There were also 17 other teams that can claim a natty since 1933 due to split polls before the BCS & CFP. Case in point Ole Miss in 1960. Alabama's dominance can be traced back to 2 major factors - their coaches, Saban and the Bear. Recruiting ranking may have distorted the program building process somewhat but it is the masterful work of the head coach that probably is the real difference maker.


source: NCAA
Authority: CFP, BCS & AP


Last 20 years - 11 different teams
YEAR SCHOOL SOURCE
2018 Clemson CFP
2017 Alabama CFP
2016 Clemson CFP
2015 Alabama CFP
2014 Ohio State CFP
2013 Flor State BCS
2012 Alabama BCS
2011 Alabama BCS
2010 Auburn BCS
2009 Alabama BCS

It's even more depressing since you can take Florida State out of contention and really Auburn too. That leaves Bama, Clemson, and Ohio State. Maybe add in Georgia and Oklahoma. 5 teams whose combine chances to win a NC are greater than the entire rest of FBS.

You are correct about the coaches. When Dabo retires Clemson will fall back to a Top 15-20 team. Bama will also fall when Saban leaves, but they won't fall as far. They will still be a Top 5-10 team but not a consistent favorite to win NC's.

[ShotgunDawg]

Just because the team you root for hasn't won a title doesn't mean the sport isn't cyclical. I don't remember Bama winning championships under Duboise or Shula. As Tale pointed out, 11 different teams have won it in the past 20 years.

So you're saying the sport is cyclical because Bama didn't dominate for about a 10 years period during which time they won the SEC title multiple times?

[Jack Lambert]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

I think Saban is bad for the SEC.

[Dawgology]

1. Reduce schollies to 70 per team and 20 per year. No exceptions, period. 20.
2. Pay the players a slightly increased stipend.
3. Penalize cheating in a draconian fashion. Make it so harsh that a coach is automatically on the chopping block if the program gets caught.

These things will create parity and, in turn, increase attendance.

You are exactly right.

Since you can't "draft" high school athletes to college there has to be a way to induce parity. I think the AAF missed the boat. They should have made the league a minor league that pays football athletes right out of highschool to come play football. Kind of a minor league for football. I think this would actually introduce ALOT of parity in college football.

Also, the handful of contenders for the NC every year is killing the sport. Lack of parity or any controls have let a few teams take control of the entire sport through money and power. They are "too big to fail" at this point. You can say it's cyclical all you want (and it may have been in the past) but we are far past that now. The entire paradigm in college football has shifted to a power/control paradigm. Now, another dominant program may rise up over the next 10-20 years and replace Bama (doubt it) but is it REALLY cyclical if one cycle lasts an entire lifetime??

[BrunswickDawg]

I had season tickets for the first 6 years after I graduated (back in the 90s) - 45 yard line on the east side lower level. $120 a seat for the season. No donation required. No points dictating my seats. I ordered my season tickets, I got placed, and I kept that same seat for 6 years. That may not be the best way to fund raise to support the program - but it was affordable, and made it manageable to drive over from Atlanta 5 times a year. That same seat is $380 plus $150 donation - $530 a seat for 6 games. That's not bad, but not exactly affordable for every family of 4. I'd love to live close enough where it made sense for me to do it - but 10 hours each way is a bitch.

However, y'all need to keep some perspective about how inexpensive it is compared to most SEC schools. To get on the season ticket wait list at UGA, you need to have given $23,900 to the Bulldog Club. You will then spend $485 a seat per year for a seat comparable to the ones I had in section 19 at DWS. And you think getting in and out of Starkville is bad? Go to Athens on a game weekend. I have friends dropping 10k annually to stay in the priority points program to keep their seats - and that doesn't get you top end seats. That gets you corner endzone seats.

[Dawgology]

Just looking at NC winners sinces 1950 (and taking the AP results as the winner) it looks like the same 6 programs have won the NC over the past 68 years almost 60% of the time with another 9 teams winning it about 35% of the time. That leaves everyone elses chances at about 5% if the ball bounces just right and they recruit some "diamonds in the rough". When people say they are tired of the same teams winning every single year it's not about just one team it's just Bama at present and (honestly) Bama most consistently. That combined with the fact that 6 of those 15 teams over the past 68 years are from the SEC makes it a very difficult task for the smaller schools in the SEC to have any chance.

[ShotgunDawg]

Just looking at NC winners sinces 1950 (and taking the AP results as the winner) it looks like the same 6 programs have won the NC over the past 68 years almost 60% of the time with another 9 teams winning it about 35% of the time. That leaves everyone elses chances at about 5% if the ball bounces just right and they recruit some "diamonds in the rough". When people say they are tired of the same teams winning every single year it's not about just one team it's just Bama at present and (honestly) Bama most consistently. That combined with the fact that 6 of those 15 teams over the past 68 years are from the SEC makes it a very difficult task for the smaller schools in the SEC to have any chance.

Good stuff

What's crazy is that we've done it the right way & it's gotten us virtually no where.

We've been to 9 straight bowl games & now our season tickets sales & recruiting are begin to regress.

You'd think that 9 straight bowl games would allow you to see growth, but now we are being out recruited by terrible Arkansas & Ole Miss. What gives?

9 straight bowl games have brought us virtually zero extra brand awareness or sex appeal

[Dawgology]

Good stuff

What's crazy is that we've done it the right way & it's gotten us virtually no where.

We've been to 9 straight bowl games & now our season tickets sales & recruiting are begin to regress.

You'd think that 9 straight bowl games would allow you to see growth, but now we are being out recruited by terrible Arkansas & Ole Miss. What gives?

9 straight bowl games have brought us virtually zero extra brand awareness or sex appeal

That is about the lack of interest by our donators to play the game at a high level. I hate to say that but it's just the reality of recruiting in this day and age.

[BeastMan]

While what you say is true. It's pretty well established that you have to recruit at a certain level to have a chance.

You’re right about that but the rankings are manipulated. The Bama bump is a thing. It’s a chicken or egg argument but I think it’s all about coaching and the ncaa being a scam that has football how it is more than recruiting rankings. Selective enforcement and then when they do enforce its teethless. It would be like only getting probation if you got caught selling heroin. Everybody would do it because the benefit (wealth) outweighs the downside. The OM case was a signal to the country that nothing really happens.

[smootness]

Good stuff

What's crazy is that we've done it the right way & it's gotten us virtually no where.

We've been to 9 straight bowl games & now our season tickets sales & recruiting are begin to regress.

You'd think that 9 straight bowl games would allow you to see growth, but now we are being out recruited by terrible Arkansas & Ole Miss. What gives?

9 straight bowl games have brought us virtually zero extra brand awareness or sex appeal

It hasn't gotten us 'virtually nowhere'.

But the reality is, we had a great coach. He is gone now. We'll see if our current coach is capable of continuing that.

College football is about coaching combined with resources and pedigree. If you have a great history with a lot of resources, it makes it easier to find a great coach, easier to keep them, and it raises both your floor and your ceiling; where you fall within that range is about who you have as coach. Same with any program, where you fall in your range is about who your coach is.

It takes a long time and a ton of success to truly raise your floor/ceiling and exist on a different plane. That, or you have to have a truly elite coach.

[ShotgunDawg]

That is about the lack of interest by our donators to play the game at a high level. I hate to say that but it's just the reality of recruiting in this day and age.

Probably because they realized that no matter how much they spend, then can't outspend the blue bloods.

[Prediction? Pain.]

I think this is well said. It's not so much the recruiting rankings as much as being educated on just how little chance you have. It really makes you ask what the point is

Bud Elliot, the recruiting dude over at SB Nation, created the "Blue Chip Ratio" (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018) metric to track this. And, at least according to his data set (which he says (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2018/7/26/17607382/blue-chip-ratio-recruit-national-title-championship-playoff) goes back to the mid-aughts), the talent floor for championship-caliber teams is having a roster consisting of roughly 50% 4- and 5-star recruits. As of last summer, there were 13 teams with that level of talent and only four teams (including A&M and Florida from the SEC) within striking distance over the next year or two.

Good times, right?

[ShotgunDawg]

Bud Elliot, the recruiting dude over at SB Nation, created the "Blue Chip Ratio" (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018) metric to track this. And, at least according to his data set (which he says (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2018/7/26/17607382/blue-chip-ratio-recruit-national-title-championship-playoff) goes back to the mid-aughts), the talent floor for championship-caliber teams is having a roster consisting of roughly 50% 4- and 5-star recruits. As of last summer, there were 13 teams with that level of talent and only four teams (including A&M and Florida from the SEC) within striking distance over the next year or two.

Good times, right?

It just creates a feeling of apathy & helplessness for everyone else. Also when you consider, they are going into other states & buying player with selective enforcement by the NCAA, it's even more defeating

[Gutter Cobreh]

Good stuff

What's crazy is that we've done it the right way & it's gotten us virtually no where.

We've been to 9 straight bowl games & now our season tickets sales & recruiting are begin to regress.

You'd think that 9 straight bowl games would allow you to see growth, but now we are being out recruited by terrible Arkansas & Ole Miss. What gives?

9 straight bowl games have brought us virtually zero extra brand awareness or sex appeal

You think the baseball stadium renovation (rebuild) was funded from strictly baseball revenues or donations?

You're having a pity party regarding the probability of winning a national championship in football, all the while not focusing on the fact that this sport has helped elevate our entire athletic program and facilities to levels we never would have had. I wouldn't say our success or the conference's success in football has gotten us "no where". In fact, I'd say it's the single reason we're as successful in other sports.

As Brunswick pointed out, we as fans or alumni don't donate at the levels other programs do. Should we get upset and stomp and cry that the system isn't fair when all the other variables aren't the same?

[IMAREBL2 AND A DAWG]

The sport is cyclical?

Could've fooled me. Time to put that narrative to bed.

As for the TV, I agree that has contributed, but I also think the apathy of knowing your team is playing for a crappy bowl has also set in.
By cyclical I felt like he was speaking in terms of teams having a ten or fifteen year run at the top rather than football itself being up and down.
I had never really thought about your theory tbh but I think you could be on to something though. I?ve always been in the cost camp. I mean they are selling monstrous TVs now with pictures that are better than live images. You can also pause rewind slo-mo and even fast forward through commercials all while sitting in your recliner.
There?s a lot to be enjoyed by the pageantry of college football but it kind of loses its allure with the comforts of home and the money you?re saving.

[confucius say]

Good stuff

What's crazy is that we've done it the right way & it's gotten us virtually no where.

We've been to 9 straight bowl games & now our season tickets sales & recruiting are begin to regress.

You'd think that 9 straight bowl games would allow you to see growth, but now we are being out recruited by terrible Arkansas & Ole Miss. What gives?

9 straight bowl games have brought us virtually zero extra brand awareness or sex appeal

On what do you base your statement that OM is out recruiting us?
On what do you base tour statement that our brand has not increased at all since 2009?

[Dawgology]

On what do you base your statement that OM is out recruiting us?
On what do you base tour statement that our brand has not increased at all since 2009?

They have out recruited us in several key positions but we have out recruited them in other positions. It becomes a wash. It seems that MSU kind of struggles recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

Our brand has definitely increased.

[confucius say]

They have out recruited us in several key positions but we have out recruited them in other positions. It becomes a wash. It seems that MSU kind of struggles recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

Our brand has definitely increased.

Ok. But would one person on here trade rosters with them?

[MedDawg]

It hasn't gotten us 'virtually nowhere'.

But the reality is, we had a great coach. He is gone now. We'll see if our current coach is capable of continuing that.

College football is about coaching combined with resources and pedigree. If you have a great history with a lot of resources, it makes it easier to find a great coach, easier to keep them, and it raises both your floor and your ceiling; where you fall within that range is about who you have as coach. Same with any program, where you fall in your range is about who your coach is.

It takes a long time and a ton of success to truly raise your floor/ceiling and exist on a different plane. That, or you have to have a truly elite coach.

That's true. And it really takes both. A school can't remain on the top plane without an elite coach. See LSU, Texas, USC. NO school can just plug-and-play coaches and stay on top.

Virginia Tech almost raised themselves to a top plane, but they couldn't maintain Beamer's success. Actually Beamer couldn't maintain Beamer's best seasons.

Clemson did it, but they do have an 80k+ stadium, so they didn't start from scratch. They also benefitted from a down Florida State and easier conference to get wins. And I still say Clemson will be down to a Top 15 or Top 20 team when Dabo leaves. Clemson will be like Miami--"Remember that decade when Miami was really really good?"

[Jack Lambert]

They have out recruited us in several key positions but we have out recruited them in other positions. It becomes a wash. It seems that MSU kind of struggles recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

Our brand has definitely increased.

What is more horrible is Ole Miss had to cheat to do it. We will see how good their offense is next season after losing everything on that side of the ball.

[Jarius]

Ole Miss has not outrecruited us. They have recruited well at 2 positions and they have a 5 star tailback that’s going to be playing pro baseball. They do not have a quarter of the talent on their roster that we have.

[gravedigger]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

Seems like you are confusing which is the tail and which is the dog.

1. Those rankings are an indication of something, not a contributor. If accurate, they don?t affect, they describe.

2. They aren?t accurate. They are the creation of websites that want money, no different from the Athlons and the Lindy?s that preceded them.

3. An overload of talent on certain teams and conferences does compromise sport, because the assumption is that playing fields are level and the rules that govern them at the very least are. We know they are not evenly applied.

4. The uneven enforcement of rules takes the real excitement out of college football. It should be about performance and coaching.

5. The limitation of scholarships had a great affect on the game from the 80?sto the present. It needs to go even further. The idea that a football team can field 80-85 scholarships which is 4 times the amount of starting offensive and defensive players on the field at a given moment is ludicrous.

[ShotgunDawg]

Ole Miss has not outrecruited us. They have recruited well at 2 positions and they have a 5 star tailback that’s going to be playing pro baseball. They do not have a quarter of the talent on their roster that we have.

I think there is a pretty good chance he gets to campus. Hasn’t had a great Spring.

[ShotgunDawg]

Seems like you are confusing which is the tail and which is the dog.

1. Those rankings are an indication of something, not a contributor. If accurate, they don?t affect, they describe.

2. They aren?t accurate. They are the creation of websites that want money, no different from the Athlons and the Lindy?s that preceded them.

3. An overload of talent on certain teams and conferences does compromise sport, because the assumption is that playing fields are level and the rules that govern them at the very least are. We know they are not evenly applied.

4. The uneven enforcement of rules takes the real excitement out of college football. It should be about performance and coaching.

5. The limitation of scholarships had a great affect on the game from the 80?sto the present. It needs to go even further. The idea that a football team can field 80-85 scholarships which is 4 times the amount of starting offensive and defensive players on the field at a given moment is ludicrous.

How can you say that recruiting rankings are somewhat valid when only top 10 recruiters have won a natty or the SEC?

[drunkernhelldawg]

Interesting topic. I don?t think recruiting rankings are killing college football. I think Bama is killing college football. Like it or not, people are just flat ass sick of them winning over and over. But on top of them, it?s also that it has become pretty clear, there is only about 10 teams in this country that have any damn shot to win it all, and about 6 of them it takes a miracle to be up there. CFB has completely left the have nots in the dust and it will come back to bite the sport eventually.

I do think that the playoff system is hurting the game. It would not be as damaging if it were not the primary focus of the CFB media. The greatness of the game itself is lost in a mad rush for the final result. It's harder to enjoy every play with a discussion of the playoff situation between every one of them, starting with the first play of the season. I'd just as soon go back to not being 100 percent sure who the champion is. I love superb play, not fancy trophies.

Personally, I don't enjoy going to games as much as I did before they became a big production. Now when I go, my main thought is: Will that damn Jumbotron ever shut up?

[dawgs]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

I think there's a lot of factors that contribute to decreasing attendance (hdtv, cell phones, decreased youth participation due to CTE means younger generations aren't as invested in the sport, skyrocketing cost of attending games, etc), but I've never really considered a role crootin' ranking play in the equation. I think the idea that it creates a "Yankees vs. the royals" feel is kinda spot on tbh and does play a role. What's weird is even the elite programs have seen decreases in attendance too though, like Bama actually fills the stadium only 1-2 times per season these days, but you could argue that their crootin' dominance (coupled with on field dominance) results in complacency among the fanbase where games against Arkansas are nothing more than a formality and everyone knows it because we know the talent difference in the rosters cause we just have to scan the crootin' rankings.

[dawgs]

I do think that the playoff system is hurting the game. It would not be as damaging if it were not the primary focus of the CFB media. The greatness of the game itself is lost in a mad rush for the final result. It's harder to enjoy every play with a discussion of the playoff situation between every one of them, starting with the first play of the season. I'd just as soon go back to not being 100 percent sure who the champion is. I love superb play, not fancy trophies.

Personally, I don't enjoy going to games as much as I did before they became a big production. Now when I go, my main thought is: Will that damn Jumbotron ever shut up?

I think consolidating FBS down to essentially the P5 programs and only having FBS teams play other FBS teams would trigger a renewed boost in interest to the regular season tbh. I don't even bother setting aside 3 hours of my day to watch state play Jackson st or south Alabama types, instead I use those days to rack up brownie points with the with and/or enjoy some early fall weather before the weather goes to shit. If I happen to be home and free for those games, I'll watch, but not going out of my way.

[HoopsDawg]

How can you say that recruiting rankings are somewhat valid when only top 10 recruiters have won a natty or the SEC?

recruiting rankings lost a lot of credibility with the 247-Scout merger. 247 became a joke when they went with participation trophies and got rid of 2 star rankings. They have a few 5 stars that my grandmother could recognize, a decent amount of 4 stars then everyone else gets a 3.

The best players win the most games obviously. You and I can go ahead and list the top 7 recruiting classes for 2020 without knowing a single kid in anyone's class. Spoiler alert: It's going to be Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc.

[LC Dawg]

Money drives college football and it will eventually lead to its downfall.

[Relardo Sidney]

Attendance is down because everyone can sit on their fat ass at home and watch every game just like me. Isn't that what you do too?

[ScoobaDawg]

Bud Elliot, the recruiting dude over at SB Nation, created the "Blue Chip Ratio" (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018) metric to track this. And, at least according to his data set (which he says (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2018/7/26/17607382/blue-chip-ratio-recruit-national-title-championship-playoff) goes back to the mid-aughts), the talent floor for championship-caliber teams is having a roster consisting of roughly 50% 4- and 5-star recruits. As of last summer, there were 13 teams with that level of talent and only four teams (including A&M and Florida from the SEC) within striking distance over the next year or two.

Good times, right?


Very interesting. Well.. we are a far far away per that standard but getting closer. 4 year average (including 19 signing class) is 22.2% . Mullen's last 2 years were only 17.5% vs Moorheads first 2 classes being 26.8%

Have to see if that will continue.. and Joe can pull in some more top talent.

[BuckyIsAB****]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

No. Attendance is down bc every game is on TV. Nothing is ruining college football, people just cant compete with Saban year to year. Clemson and UGA are getting there.

There is virtually no difference in the class ranked 25 and 15. If you think those guys on 247 and Rivals/Scout are Bill Walsh then they should matter to you, but to people who are sane they shouldnt mean as much

[ShotgunDawg]

No. Attendance is down bc every game is on TV. Nothing is ruining college football, people just cant compete with Saban year to year. Clemson and UGA are getting there.

There is virtually no difference in the class ranked 25 and 15. If you think those guys on 247 and Rivals/Scout are Bill Walsh then they should matter to you, but to people who are sane they shouldnt mean as much

1. Sure, much of the issue that the games are on TV but I think it's naive and lazy to believe that's 100% of the issue.

2. Much of these recruiting rankings are computerized, model based predictions based on size, speed, vertical leap, etc. Very similar to what NFL and college programs have. football evaluations are much less about gut feel and eye for talent as many think. You can slot most of these guys into a talent lane based purely off measurables. That's why when people say recruiting rankings are invalid, I pretty much chalk those people up as people that are ignorant to what they are actually calling invalid.

[smootness]

1. Sure, much of the issue that the games are on TV but I think it's naive and lazy to believe that's 100% of the issue.

2. Much of these recruiting rankings are computerized, model based predictions based on size, speed, vertical leap, etc.

No, they are not. At all. Which actually lends them to being more accurate.

But yes, TV kills attendance far more than recruiting rankings.

[dawgs]

recruiting rankings lost a lot of credibility with the 247-Scout merger. 247 became a joke when they went with participation trophies and got rid of 2 star rankings. They have a few 5 stars that my grandmother could recognize, a decent amount of 4 stars then everyone else gets a 3.

The best players win the most games obviously. You and I can go ahead and list the top 7 recruiting classes for 2020 without knowing a single kid in anyone's class. Spoiler alert: It's going to be Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc.

Eh look at the rating value, not just the starzzz if you wanna discern the difference between players. An 89 and an 81 are both 3*, but clearly the 89 is considered the better player and closer to a 4* than the bottom of the 3*.

[HoopsDawg]

Eh look at the rating value, not just the starzzz if you wanna discern the difference between players. An 89 and an 81 are both 3*, but clearly the 89 is considered the better player and closer to a 4* than the bottom of the 3*.

Most people just look at stars though. And these recruiting guys aren't stressing over 82 or 85, lol. I guess if they complain enough they can get a guy moved to 89 but who cares.

[gravedigger]

How can you say that recruiting rankings are somewhat valid when only top 10 recruiters have won a natty or the SEC?

Because I?m not trying to induce a conclusion. Deductively speaking the rankings would match the recruiting rankings below the top 10 and they don?t. Additionally, there is literally no way to look at a film clip of high school players and derive contribution to a team. There is also no way to quantify the difference in the way coaches evaluate or the difference between Offensive linemen value and a cornerback. It is literally absurd. Bama gets the best players because their coach?s decision to recruit them is how these services determine who is best. They win because their program is tun well by their coach and his staff.

All that said, some non coach evaluating players has little correlation and absolutely no causation to what ingredients make up a good team.

I get the fascination. I just see too many examples of the opposite to buy into the fact that it?s real.

[TUSK]

Because I?m not trying to induce a conclusion. Deductively speaking the rankings would match the recruiting rankings below the top 10 and they don?t. Additionally, there is literally no way to look at a film clip of high school players and derive contribution to a team. There is also no way to quantify the difference in the way coaches evaluate or the difference between Offensive linemen value and a cornerback. It is literally absurd. Bama gets the best players because their coach?s decision to recruit them is how these services determine who is best. They win because their program is tun well by their coach and his staff.

All that said, some non coach evaluating players has little correlation and absolutely no causation to what ingredients make up a good team.

I get the fascination. I just see too many examples of the opposite to buy into the fact that it?s real.

The Accuracy of a "Recruiting Ranking" is Progressively Inversely Proportional to it's actual "Overall Rating"...

IMO....