2018 SEC Talent Rankings W/Ls

[ShotgunDawg]

Was following the Bo Bounds & Jake Wimberly conversation on twitter about how Tennessee has the edge in our game this year.

Bo threw out the statement that the better recruiting team wins 80% of time.

So I did a little fact checking, &, while I didn't have enough time to peruse the last 5 years, using 247's team talent rankings for 2018, the current trend does not seem to indicate that Bo is incorrect in his statement.

In 2018, SEC only football games.

- The higher talent ranking team won 71% of the time. Duh, many of those games are obvious blowouts
- Take out Bama's games & that % falls to 65%
- When the difference between team talent rankings is 10 spots or less, the % falls to only 60%, which means it's basically a coin flip on any given Saturday unless those teams plan on playing 10 times.

Conclusion:

Of course team talent matters, but not as much as the gap in recruiting rankings indicates that it does. The recruiting rankings mostly get the teams in the right order, but, due to poor evaluations & bias towards blue bloods, they make the gap appear larger than it really is.

When two SEC teams matchup & their teams talent rankings are separated by 10 or less spots, the game comes down to everything else, not the talent on the field.

I say all this to say; I wish our in-state media cut out the bullshit. I can't imagine there is another state in the SEC footprint that has more media guys dampering enthusiasm than this one. Just a bad part of our state.

[msstate7]

With 2018 having 4 new HCs in the sec, it might have thrown a wrench in it somehow.

1 year seems like a pretty small sample. How many years recruiting avg did you use?

[ShotgunDawg]

With 2018 having 4 new HCs in the sec, it might have thrown a wrench in it somehow.

1 year seems like a pretty small sample. How many years recruiting avg did you use?

You could be completely correct. I just takes time to record every game along with organizing the team talent info with it.

I only used 2018 & you could be completely correct that it's too small of a sample size. I plan on working on the other years when I have time this week.

[TUSK]

Was following the Bo Bounds & Jake Wimberly conversation on twitter about how Tennessee has the edge in our game this year.

Bo threw out the statement that the better recruiting team wins 80% of time.

So I did a little fact checking, &, while I didn't have enough time to peruse the last 5 years, using 247's team talent rankings for 2018, the current trend does not seem to indicate that Bo is correct in his statement.

In 2018, SEC only football games.

- The higher talent ranking team won 71% of the time
- Take out Bama's games & that % falls to 65%
- When the difference between team talent rankings is 10 spots or less, the % falls to only 60%, which means it's basically a coin flip on any given Saturday unless those teams plan on playing 10 times.

Conclusion:

Of course team talent matters, but not as much as the gap in recruiting rankings indicates that it does. The recruiting rankings mostly get the teams in the right order, but, due to poor evaluations & bias towards blue bloods, they make the gap appear larger than it really is.

When two SEC two SEC teams matchup & their teams talent rankings are separated by 10 or less spots, the game comes down to everything else, not the talent on the field.

I say all this to say; I wish our in-state media cut out the bullshit. I can't imagine there is another state in the SEC footprint that has more media guys dampering enthusiasm than this one. Just a bad part of our state.

Yup. "Talent level" of competing teams is directly proportional to "predictability of outcome" of a contest between said teams...

edited... screwed that up... dammit.

[DancingRabbit]

Any time you go on the road in the SEC, excepting Vandy, you can get beat. Disregarding Bama. So yeah, UTK might beat us.

But it won't be because they were a few spots higher in raw recruiting rankings. Who qualified, who's still there, who transferred in or out? Were the classes balanced, do they fit the coordinator now calling their plays?

Recruiting is almost everything, but raw ranking numbers can be a mirage. Isn't there a set number of 4* given out nationwide (240ish)? So don't you think there are a lot of high 3* that are basically equal? That's where name brand comes in. What's the size of your online subscriber base?

[ShotgunDawg]

Isn't there a set number of 4* given out nationwide (240ish)? So don't you think there are a lot of high 3* that are basically equal? That's where name brand comes in. What's the size of your online subscriber base?

This is correct

[Pollodawg]

Any time you go on the road in the SEC, excepting Vandy, you can get beat. Disregarding Bama. So yeah, UTK might beat us.

But it won't be because they were a few spots higher in raw recruiting rankings. Who qualified, who's still there, who transferred in or out? Were the classes balanced, do they fit the coordinator now calling their plays?

Recruiting is almost everything, but raw ranking numbers can be a mirage. Isn't there a set number of 4* given out nationwide (240ish)? So don't you think there are a lot of high 3* that are basically equal? That's where name brand comes in. What's the size of your online subscriber base?

Isn’t it amazing how some fans never seem to grasp this?

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

There's 3 problems with just the talent ratings alone:

1) Age and experience... a bunch of true So 4* will loose more often than not to a bunch of high 3* 5th year Srs

2) Coaching. LSU's OC and QB coach held them back for years, for example.

3) Roster balance... you can have stud DBs riding the bench because there's ore stud DBs ahread of them, as the OL struggles to field a unit that gives the O a chance. See OM's abundance of WRs vs their entire D. You'd be better off with a mediocre units across the boar tan 1 stud one and one truly abysmal unit every opponent can take advantage of. Yet rankings only see total stars and don't take roster needs into consideration.

Overall, if you recruit good you can redshirt more guys and help with 1). Also, recruits want to play for a good coach, so if a team has good recruiting they tend to have the edge in 2) as well. Lastly, in general, every coach knows their needs so will try to address them.

HOWEVER the context is us vs Tennessee. I think we have the edge in coaching, especually if you take into consideration the + player development under Mullen compared to Butch Jones. I think we have at least a push in age/experience. And I certainly think we have a better balanced roster than what Butch Jones built which is still the bulk of what Pruitt has to rely on. So no Bo, TN doesn't have the talent edge.

hell, lets just look at the classes from 2-5 years ago: In EVERY SINGLE ONE of those classes TN was rated higher than us. Yet the NFL draft would beg to differ. That's not shot at recruiting rankings overall, it's a shot at Butch Jones' talent evaluation relative to ours. We were grabbing mid 3* Sweat while he grabbed 4* busts that he only got because every other P5 program could see that. All the 3rd-5th year guys for both teams were scouted by Mullen and Jones, so I think it's reasonable to say we actually have more pure talent in and of itself

[Jarius]

Any time you go on the road in the SEC, excepting Vandy, you can get beat. Disregarding Bama. So yeah, UTK might beat us.

But it won't be because they were a few spots higher in raw recruiting rankings. Who qualified, who's still there, who transferred in or out? Were the classes balanced, do they fit the coordinator now calling their plays?

Recruiting is almost everything, but raw ranking numbers can be a mirage. Isn't there a set number of 4* given out nationwide (240ish)? So don't you think there are a lot of high 3* that are basically equal? That's where name brand comes in. What's the size of your online subscriber base?


This Tennessee team that our fans are scared to death of sure didn’t mind going on the road to Vandy and getting skull drug last year. But yea I agree with most of your post.

[BuckyIsAB****]

Was following the Bo Bounds & Jake Wimberly conversation on twitter about how Tennessee has the edge in our game this year.

Bo threw out the statement that the better recruiting team wins 80% of time.

So I did a little fact checking, &, while I didn't have enough time to peruse the last 5 years, using 247's team talent rankings for 2018, the current trend does not seem to indicate that Bo is incorrect in his statement.

In 2018, SEC only football games.

- The higher talent ranking team won 71% of the time. Duh, many of those games are obvious blowouts
- Take out Bama's games & that % falls to 65%
- When the difference between team talent rankings is 10 spots or less, the % falls to only 60%, which means it's basically a coin flip on any given Saturday unless those teams plan on playing 10 times.

Conclusion:

Of course team talent matters, but not as much as the gap in recruiting rankings indicates that it does. The recruiting rankings mostly get the teams in the right order, but, due to poor evaluations & bias towards blue bloods, they make the gap appear larger than it really is.

When two SEC teams matchup & their teams talent rankings are separated by 10 or less spots, the game comes down to everything else, not the talent on the field.

I say all this to say; I wish our in-state media cut out the bullshit. I can't imagine there is another state in the SEC footprint that has more media guys dampering enthusiasm than this one. Just a bad part of our state.

Its almost like there is no difference in the class ranked 15 and 20. Just like I told you while back. Another reason its ridiculous to flip shit about being behind someone in recruiting rankings

[Bothrops]

Knoxville is win #8, we either take it or leave it.

[msstate7]

Last year from April through June, we got 5 4-star commitments. During this period, stars mattered and joe was the greatest recruiter ever. Since that point, we've got 4 4-star (or better, cross) and now stars don't matter. You can always tell how recruiting is going by whether stars matter or not.

[Jarius]

Last year from April through June, we got 5 4-star commitments. During this period, stars mattered and joe was the greatest recruiter ever. Since that point, we've got 4 4-star (or better, cross) and now stars don't matter. You can always tell how recruiting is going by whether stars matter or not.

In another month or 2 we will have added an additional 2 4 star players and at least 1 (probably 2) of our current commits will get upgraded to 4 stars. Stars do matter, but the jump from Alabama to an Auburn or A&M type program in recruiting is much more accurate than a jump from Auburn/A&M to MSU. The results between these teams over the past few years bear that out.

[msstate7]

In another month or 2 we will have added an additional 2 4 star players and at least 1 (probably 2) of our current commits will get upgraded to 4 stars. Stars do matter, but the jump from Alabama to an Auburn or A&M type program in recruiting is much more accurate than a jump from Auburn/A&M to MSU. The results between these teams over the past few years bear that out.

I think Mullen's RS plan was a good one, and it helped offset some of the talent gap with experience. I wanna keep the RS plan, but we need to get more 4-stars on offense like we do on defense.

[Jarius]

I think Mullen's RS plan was a good one, and it helped offset some of the talent gap with experience. I wanna keep the RS plan, but we need to get more 4-stars on offense like we do on defense.

I think part of it is that MS high school recruits are underevaluated and part of it is that high 3 stars like Marcus Murphy and Fabo Lovett are as good as a lot of 4 stars. We recruit a lot of high 3 stars and the difference in talent between those guys and the 4 stars that some of the higher profile programs recruit is negligible. We also have a lot of raw talent in this state that doesn't get developed properly in high school because our HS coaches are not as good as some in other states. Once they get to college and receive proper coaching they blossom.

[Todd4State]

I think Mullen's RS plan was a good one, and it helped offset some of the talent gap with experience. I wanna keep the RS plan, but we need to get more 4-stars on offense like we do on defense.

Dan's biggest problem was he didn't have balance in a lot of classes leaving us thin at position groups as well as rarely signing a full 25 leaving us with unused scholarships.

[BrunswickDawg]

Last year from April through June, we got 5 4-star commitments. During this period, stars mattered and joe was the greatest recruiter ever. Since that point, we've got 4 4-star (or better, cross) and now stars don't matter. You can always tell how recruiting is going by whether stars matter or not.

I haven't seen anyone say stars don't matter. I think a lot the discussion has to do with our on-field performance of multiple 3* and 4* players at MSU who became 4* & 5* quality performers and are now the highest paid at their position in the NFL. If anything that provides evidence that the players we sign tend to be under rated. Add that to the fact that we have seen multiple players sign with us and see their rating fall, or de-commit from us and be given a higher rating - and you have more evidence that the rating system has biases that do not necessarily predict on-field performance or talent within the program.

I hope Shotgun puts the numbers together for more than 18 - it will be interesting.

[MetEdDawg]

This fan base should go in to Knoxville expecting to win that game. We are better than they are. Period.

Recruiting rankings can go screw themselves. Here's what I know. In the last decade Tennessee has won more than 7 games twice. They've won 2 conference games in the last 2 years. We are the better program over the last decade and that's not even close to debatable.

The aura of Tennessee is still something people use to project with. But the truth is they don't and shouldn't scare anyone because in the last decade they just haven't been a scary team.

We should go into Knoxville expecting to win as a fan base and a program no matter what anyone says because everything we've seen over the last decade tells us we are better. Since 2010, Tennessee has finished higher than us in recruiting ranking all but once, and the one year was 2013 where they finished 1 spot behind us. But since 2010 they have 6 losing seasons in an easier division.

They have finished in the Top 10 in recruiting more than we have finished Top 20. But they suck compared to us over the last decade. If we want to grow as a fan base, we can't let the aura of the 1990's and early 2000's Tennessee play us into thinking that they are the better team.

Because they aren't. We are. Make sure you walk around KNOWING that fact.

[Leroy Jenkins]

Was following the Bo Bounds & Jake Wimberly conversation on twitter about how Tennessee has the edge in our game this year.

Bo threw out the statement......

I am going to do an experiment:

1. I will consume 32oz of refried beans (cold, straight out of the can).
2. I will chase the beans with 4 pints of smooth and creamy Guinness stout.
3. I will wait 60 minutes.
4. I will record the sounds from my arse.
5. I will compare the sounds of my flatus to those made by Bo's mouth.
6. I will make the determination if Bo's mouth is in fact less intelligent than my arse.
7. I will market my talking arse to ESPN in hopes of it getting a radio show.

The part I am unsure of, as it relates to taxes, is if any income generated by my talking arse counts as a 2nd income for me, or an initial income by my arse.

[gravedigger]

Isn’t it amazing how some fans never seem to grasp this?

It is literally astounding.

Then again, we all want an easy indicator to predict by, so it's obvious WHY people look for one statistic here or one person there.

What levels things out is the bounce of the ball, a terrible call and the affect that has on the next few plays. The understanding of the plays and their concepts by the players themselves, leadership by the players...the list could go on forever.

One thing I've realized over time: A team like Bama who is certainly talented all the time, is very good because of its talent, but the difference in 'very good' and 'great' is the way the coach runs the program.

[msstate7]

So which ones of you wouldn't trade last year's class with aTm, auburn, Bama, LSU, or tenn's (teams on our schedule with more than a 5 spot recruiting advantage)? I'd trade with every one of them

[MetEdDawg]

So which ones of you wouldn't trade last year's class with aTm, auburn, Bama, LSU, or tenn's (teams on our schedule with more than a 5 spot recruiting advantage)? I'd trade with every one of them

Oh for sure. I would too. But to say Tennessee is better than us because they've recruited better, which is what Bo said, is absurd.

Sure those teams win more often. And I like winning more often. But using that as a major component going into a season as why a team will win or is better is lazy.

But yes I would trade for sure. I think we've all said that 5-10 more spots consistently in recruiting from us (so between 13-20 finish every year) would make us contenders, even with Bama being as high as they are. We've gone toe to toe with them and others well above us on multiple occasions. We can develop the talent. We need higher ranked classes for sure. I just have a problem with someone using that as a major basis for why Tennessee is better than us.

[Doggie_Style]

Any time you go on the road in the SEC, excepting Vandy, you can get beat. Disregarding Bama. So yeah, UTK might beat us.

But it won't be because they were a few spots higher in raw recruiting rankings. Who qualified, who's still there, who transferred in or out? Were the classes balanced, do they fit the coordinator now calling their plays?

Recruiting is almost everything, but raw ranking numbers can be a mirage. Isn't there a set number of 4* given out nationwide (240ish)? So don't you think there are a lot of high 3* that are basically equal? That's where name brand comes in. What's the size of your online subscriber base?

Let's make it simple....teams consistently finishing worse than 20th in recruiting rankings don't win championships......hell. teams finishing outside the top 10 don't either.....we usually finish around 25th in the last decade or so....we continue to recruit at this same level so it is reasonable to expect about the same result.

[Tbonewannabe]

It is literally astounding.

Then again, we all want an easy indicator to predict by, so it's obvious WHY people look for one statistic here or one person there.

What levels things out is the bounce of the ball, a terrible call and the affect that has on the next few plays. The understanding of the plays and their concepts by the players themselves, leadership by the players...the list could go on forever.

One thing I've realized over time: A team like Bama who is certainly talented all the time, is very good because of its talent, but the difference in 'very good' and 'great' is the way the coach runs the program.

Also Saban reloads enough that he rarely relies on younger players. Now he might have a great freshman WR but at the same time he will have a junior or senior OLine along with experienced RBs and/or QB. Where we have gone through cycles of having a lot of freshmen and sophomores and taken a step back while they gained experience and then had good years. Saban recruits at a high enough level while also processing the guys who don't cut it. It keeps his talent level high overall while also keeping an experienced team.

[Tbonewannabe]

Let's make it simple....teams consistently finishing worse than 20th in recruiting rankings don't win championships......hell. teams finishing outside the top 10 don't either.....we usually finish around 25th in the last decade or so....we continue to recruit at this same level so it is reasonable to expect about the same result.

MSU under Mullen had recruiting rankings by 247 of:
2009 - 18
2010 - 30
2011 - 41
2012 - 22
2013 - 24
2014 - 36
2015 - 18
2016 - 28
2017 - 24

No longer Mullen's classes but work done by Mullen:
2018 - 27
2019 - 24

It looks like we need to just improve and get into the top 20 consistently. It could be just the extra push we need to get into that 9-10 win consistency that we need as a program.

I will say that almost every single year, UM was rated higher so there is something to be said about having a balanced class and recruiting both lines well. We have typically recruited DLine well and developed a good Oline. UM has just tried to buy Oline and WRs and it has kind of backfired on them because of the lack of attention at key positions.

[BrunswickDawg]

I am going to do an experiment:

1. I will consume 32oz of refried beans (cold, straight out of the can).
2. I will chase the beans with 4 pints of smooth and creamy Guinness stout.
3. I will wait 60 minutes.
4. I will record the sounds from my arse.
5. I will compare the sounds of my flatus to those made by Bo's mouth.
6. I will make the determination if Bo's mouth is in fact less intelligent than my arse.
7. I will market my talking arse to ESPN in hopes of it getting a radio show.

The part I am unsure of, as it relates to taxes, is if any income generated by my talking arse counts as a 2nd income for me, or an initial income by my arse.

USDA Prime here Leroy - You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Leroy Jenkins again.

[BrunswickDawg]

So which ones of you wouldn't trade last year's class with aTm, auburn, Bama, LSU, or tenn's (teams on our schedule with more than a 5 spot recruiting advantage)? I'd trade with every one of them

All those teams have recruited on paper better than us every year over the last 6 years - and probably longer.
This year's RS Seniors are 2-2 vs. Auburn, 1-3 vs LSU (2 of those decided by a FG or less) and are 3-1 vs. A&M. Arkansas has out recruited us 2 of the last 5 years, yet we are 3-1; OM has out recruited us 3 of the last 5 years, and we are 2-2 against them. On paper, we should be 5-16 against if you go by "talent", but we are 13-9 on the field.

Yes, Bama has whipped us for forever, and out recruits everyone - against everyone else it is a margin of error competition right now. Stars be damned.

[msstate7]

All those teams have recruited on paper better than us every year over the last 6 years - and probably longer.
This year's RS Seniors are 2-2 vs. Auburn, 1-3 vs LSU (2 of those decided by a FG or less) and are 3-1 vs. A&M. Arkansas has out recruited us 2 of the last 5 years, yet we are 3-1; OM has out recruited us 3 of the last 5 years, and we are 2-2 against them. On paper, we should be 5-16 against if you go by "talent", but we are 13-9 on the field.

Yes, Bama has whipped us for forever, and out recruits everyone - against everyone else it is a margin of error competition right now. Stars be damned.

So you'd take our class over auburn, LSU, tenn, and aTm's last season?

[DancingRabbit]

Let's make it simple....teams consistently finishing worse than 20th in recruiting rankings don't win championships......hell. teams finishing outside the top 10 don't either.....we usually finish around 25th in the last decade or so....we continue to recruit at this same level so it is reasonable to expect about the same result.

Yeah, used to be that folks used stadium size to make their predictions - now it's signing day results.

We're not winning a championship this year, but neither is UTK.

The discussion was whether or not the game in Knoxville could be predicted based on recruiting rankings. What say you on the topic being discussed?

[DownwardDawg]

MSU under Mullen had recruiting rankings by 247 of:
2009 - 18
2010 - 30
2011 - 41
2012 - 22
2013 - 24
2014 - 36
2015 - 18
2016 - 28
2017 - 24

No longer Mullen's classes but work done by Mullen:
2018 - 27
2019 - 24

It looks like we need to just improve and get into the top 20 consistently. It could be just the extra push we need to get into that 9-10 win consistency that we need as a program.

I will say that almost every single year, UM was rated higher so there is something to be said about having a balanced class and recruiting both lines well. We have typically recruited DLine well and developed a good Oline. UM has just tried to buy Oline and WRs and it has kind of backfired on them because of the lack of attention at key positions.

Great post!! We need to start having too 20 classes every year while also filling our needs. If we could reach those 2 goals together, I think we would win 8-11 games every year with 8 being the down years.

[msstate7]

Yeah, used to be that folks used stadium size to make their predictions - now it's signing day results.

We're not winning a championship this year, but neither is UTK.

The discussion was whether or not the game in Knoxville could be predicted based on recruiting rankings. What say you on the topic being discussed?

Not really sure what that 1 game proves either way. If tenn wins, stars matter? And if we win, stars don't matter?

[DancingRabbit]

Not really sure what that 1 game proves either way. If tenn wins, stars matter? And if we win, stars don't matter?

You always twist things around. Where did I say that game outcome proves something about recruiting rankings?

[Doggie_Style]

Yeah, used to be that folks used stadium size to make their predictions - now it's signing day results.

We're not winning a championship this year, but neither is UTK.

The discussion was whether or not the game in Knoxville could be predicted based on recruiting rankings. What say you on the topic being discussed?

If you look at 2017, 2018 recruit ranking MSU (24, 27) and Tenn (17, 21) have similar results. Neither are close to being elite. Therefore recruiting rankings don't really affect the outcome of this game. I would place home field advantage as a bigger factor as well as who has the better OL, DL and QB.

[BrunswickDawg]

So you'd take our class over auburn, LSU, tenn, and aTm's last season?

We've had this discussion before 7 - On paper they are better. Great. More talent for the rich. I don't pay any attention to who other teams sign unless they are head-to-head with us on someone. I have no idea if the players they recruited fit the needs of our roster or our systems. So how am I supposed to judge classes designed for their team vs. ours? You can't really - other than on field results. So this past years class is some what moot until they get on the field and produce.

Could we use more guys with talent coming in? Definitely. Is a * rating an indication of talent? Yes. Is it a predictor of production? Nope. Is a star rating a predictor of player development? Nope. Is it a predictor of W/L? Nope.

[DancingRabbit]

If you look at 2017, 2018 recruit ranking MSU (24, 27) and Tenn (17, 21) have similar results. Neither are close to being elite. Therefore recruiting rankings don't really affect the outcome of this game. I would place home field advantage as a bigger factor as well as who has the better OL, DL and QB.

Bingo

[DancingRabbit]

It would be interesting to list average recruiting ranking next to each team.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-Y7aR3W4AAwG8D.jpg:small

[TUSK]

It would be interesting to list average recruiting ranking next to each team.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-Y7aR3W4AAwG8D.jpg:small

I ain't doin' nuthin', Rabbit... I'll hop on that....

[TUSK]

It would be interesting to list average recruiting ranking next to each team.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-Y7aR3W4AAwG8D.jpg:small

cliff notes (numbers are recruiting rank minus win % rank):

MSU +5 and Tennessee -5 are huge outliers...

Vandy has actually overachieved +4, while Arkie underachieved at -3.

the rest of the programs fell within [2]...

As expected, there was more volatility the further down in the rankings...

In short, recruiting rankings, while not the "end all - be all", are an indicator of "success"...

If y'all want, I'll break it down some more... specific queries would help...

[msstate7]

cliff notes (numbers are recruiting rank minus win % rank):

MSU +5 and Tennessee -5 are huge outliers...

Vandy has actually overachieved +4, while Arkie underachieved at -3.

the rest of the programs fell within [2]...

As expected, there was more volatility the further down in the rankings...

In short, recruiting rankings, while not the "end all - be all", are an indicator of "success"...

If y'all want, I'll break it down some more... specific queries would help...

It'll be interesting to see if we can buck the odds without Mullen

[TUSK]

It'll be interesting to see if we can buck the odds without Mullen

I dunno... But the only reasons I can see for UT and MSU being such large outliers were the HC situations at the 2 programs... UT has been in a world of shit for a while now...

[PMDawg]

My take is that it's more of a "tiered" thing. Outside of the top 5 or so classes, I think you start getting "diminishing returns" fairly quickly on that ranking. A top 5 class is better, by a long shot, than the number 11 class. But is the number 11 class really that much better than the number 17 class? Probably difficult to know most years. I think there are a lot of groups of classes that are probably very similar, so the actual ranking doesn't mean much. If you have the 40th or 60th class, they both suck pretty bad, so who cares at that point?

Tier 1 - Top 5
Tier 2 - 6 thru 12 or so
Tier 3 - 13th thru 20th or so

And so on...

[TUSK]

My take is that it's more of a "tiered" thing. Outside of the top 5 or so classes, I think you start getting "diminishing returns" fairly quickly on that ranking. A top 5 class is better, by a long shot, than the number 11 class. But is the number 11 class really that much better than the number 17 class? Probably difficult to know most years. I think there are a lot of groups of classes that are probably very similar, so the actual ranking doesn't mean much. If you have the 40th or 60th class, they both suck pretty bad, so who cares at that point?

Tier 1 - Top 5
Tier 2 - 6 thru 12 or so
Tier 3 - 13th thru 20th or so

And so on...

That's a great way to look at, PM. I kinda break it down by "Avg Recruit Rating"....

=> 92 - You're prolly gonna kick the shit outta most people.
90-92 - No limits.
88-90 - This is where there is some "separation" beginning, IMO.

When you get much lower than that, the intangibles become more important and the margin for error decreases... It gets really "muddy" in the <= 86-88 range....

[msstate7]

That's a great way to look at, PM. I kinda break it down by "Avg Recruit Rating"....

=> 92 - You're prolly gonna kick the shit outta most people.
90-92 - No limits.
88-90 - This is where there is some "separation" beginning, IMO.

When you get much lower than that, the intangibles become more important and the margin for error decreases... It gets really "muddy" in the <= 86-88 range....
I love avg per recruit, but I think it loses its value some when you compare full classes to small classes, and also when kickers and punters are a part of the class. For instance, Georgia this year has a kicker that's at 78... that drags down avg per recruit, but truth is that kicker is probably a BA. Recruiting services need to rate kickers and punters correctly

[TUSK]

I love avg per recruit, but I think it loses its value some when you compare full classes to small classes, and also when kickers and punters are a part of the class. For instance, Georgia this year has a kicker that's at 78... that drags down avg per recruit, but truth is that kicker is probably a BA. Recruiting services need to rate kickers and punters correctly

I'd agree with that, however it's a much lesser evil than ranking classes on "total points", imo.... And Kickers ratings are whack, for sure.

Lots of times schools take "package" deals, legacies, ST players, etc that dilute the average.

[gravedigger]

Was following the Bo Bounds & Jake Wimberly conversation on twitter about how Tennessee has the edge in our game this year.

Bo threw out the statement that the better recruiting team wins 80% of time.

So I did a little fact checking, &, while I didn't have enough time to peruse the last 5 years, using 247's team talent rankings for 2018, the current trend does not seem to indicate that Bo is incorrect in his statement.

In 2018, SEC only football games.

- The higher talent ranking team won 71% of the time. Duh, many of those games are obvious blowouts
- Take out Bama's games & that % falls to 65%
- When the difference between team talent rankings is 10 spots or less, the % falls to only 60%, which means it's basically a coin flip on any given Saturday unless those teams plan on playing 10 times.

Conclusion:

Of course team talent matters, but not as much as the gap in recruiting rankings indicates that it does. The recruiting rankings mostly get the teams in the right order, but, due to poor evaluations & bias towards blue bloods, they make the gap appear larger than it really is.

When two SEC teams matchup & their teams talent rankings are separated by 10 or less spots, the game comes down to everything else, not the talent on the field.

I say all this to say; I wish our in-state media cut out the bullshit. I can't imagine there is another state in the SEC footprint that has more media guys dampering enthusiasm than this one. Just a bad part of our state.

Great discussion. Kudos to you, Shotgun for starting it in a way that lead to an interesting thread.

I have to say that TALENT matters pretty big. The accuracy of talent evaluation and the impact of coaching and other circumstances are hard to measure, and therefore create a problem when trying to resolve why team A loses to team B over a period of time.

There are teams out there that are well coached and recruit well at the same time. They are the ones in the playoff each year. Simply talented teams with average coaches fall just shy. Simply well coached teams that sit in a recruiting vacuum either fall shy, spike for a year or get their coach hired away and that team makes the playoff eventually.

Joe Moorhead will do fine here given time. His offense is exciting. That will attract the type players we need to run it. We will have to pay a high price to keep Shoop if he keeps up the defense very well. That is the key to our success. We have to be willing to pay for the defense that sustains us until we are rolling on offense. Will it get us to the playoff? WAY too early to tell.

I feel a tinge of excitement this coming year for us. We still have a stable defense with a great coach. We now have a coach who has a qb with the understanding of his system to make it run like it's supposed to.

2020 and 2021 are dependent on keeping Shoop, and how the freshman qb progresses into fall of 2020.

[R2Dawg]

Talent yes to some degree but the problem is the talent evaluation isn't always accurate. See MSU teams and players and how many have turned out. Check out NFL rosters and see how many NFL players come from small schools, not power 5. The "experts" missed on the talent grading. So how do you figure that into the metrics?

[msstate7]

Talent yes to some degree but the problem is the talent evaluation isn't always accurate. See MSU teams and players and how many have turned out. Check out NFL rosters and see how many NFL players come from small schools, not power 5. The "experts" missed on the talent grading. So how do you figure that into the metrics?
If recruiting rankings are gonna be used as predictors, someone should create a site that re-ranks players each year.

[Percho]

Was following the Bo Bounds & Jake Wimberly conversation on twitter about how Tennessee has the edge in our game this year.

Bo threw out the statement that the better recruiting team wins 80% of time.

So I did a little fact checking, &, while I didn't have enough time to peruse the last 5 years, using 247's team talent rankings for 2018, the current trend does not seem to indicate that Bo is incorrect in his statement.

In 2018, SEC only football games.

- The higher talent ranking team won 71% of the time. Duh, many of those games are obvious blowouts
- Take out Bama's games & that % falls to 65%
- When the difference between team talent rankings is 10 spots or less, the % falls to only 60%, which means it's basically a coin flip on any given Saturday unless those teams plan on playing 10 times.

Conclusion:

Of course team talent matters, but not as much as the gap in recruiting rankings indicates that it does. The recruiting rankings mostly get the teams in the right order, but, due to poor evaluations & bias towards blue bloods, they make the gap appear larger than it really is.

When two SEC teams matchup & their teams talent rankings are separated by 10 or less spots, the game comes down to everything else, not the talent on the field.

I say all this to say; I wish our in-state media cut out the bullshit. I can't imagine there is another state in the SEC footprint that has more media guys dampering enthusiasm than this one. Just a bad part of our state.

The % points for officials and talent are about equal in the last few years of our games with Bama. IMHO.

[ShotgunDawg]

At the extremes yes, it's all about the players, but not really in the middle. Within 10-12 spots in the recruiting rankings, one team may have a slight edge in margin for error, but it's more about everything else.

https://twitter.com/bobounds/status/1145867326341951488

[gravedigger]

If recruiting rankings are gonna be used as predictors, someone should create a site that re-ranks players each year.

It would reveal quite a bit. I seem to remember David Murray used to do it.

[ShotgunDawg]

Faux Bounds getting owned now. Classic case of an idiot. Thinks he has it all figured out.

https://twitter.com/MS_SportsGuy/status/1145872333187538944

[ShotgunDawg]

If recruiting rankings are gonna be used as predictors, someone should create a site that re-ranks players each year.

This is correct & one of the smartest things that has been said.

If absolutely nothing else, when mock drafts start coming out, they could just use guys with 1st round as 5 stars, 2nd-4th round as 4 stars. Just re-rank some teams on that basis, & you'd come closer.

The fact that they don't rerank/evaluate prospects after their sophomore year make the team talent rankings an absolute scam

[Tbonewannabe]

This is correct & one of the smartest things that has been said.

If absolutely nothing else, when mock drafts start coming out, they could just use guys with 1st round as 5 stars, 2nd-4th round as 4 stars. Just re-rank some teams on that basis, & you'd come closer.

The fact that they don't rerank/evaluate prospects after their sophomore year make the team talent rankings an absolute scam

If you just look at our guys who have went in the draft in the early rounds, most were 4 or 5 star guys. Sherrod, Cox, Chris Jones, Simmons. Then you have Sweat, Abram, and Slay who were Juco guys who didn't get ranked properly. I believe all were either high 3 star or 4 star guys out of high school.

Then you have the guys like McKinnley (who developed from a QB to a LB) and Banks (from a little town). With the number of camps now, more of the guys like Banks are getting recognized so it is making recruiting even more accurate.

There will always be a name factor because that is part of what drives the website hits but it is getting to the point where if you are outside the top 25 in recruiting then it would be a miracle to compete with the Bama, LSU, UGA, and UF teams. Those guys will have at least top 10-15 talent every year.