Interesting Twitter Thread on Recruiting vs Wins

[ShotgunDawg]

This thread ties back into the SEC records since expansion & combines that with my recruiting thread the other day. Just click on the initial tweet to see the rest of the thread.

Pretty good stuff here.

My only issue is that we are making it too black & white between better recruiter/lesser recruiter & not considering magnitude. Magnitude matters because, like political polling, there is a room for error that stretches on average about 10-15 recruiting rankings spots in either direction. Big difference between the #2 recruiter & #35. Not much difference between #11 recruiter & #28 yet we want to make it black & white that #11 will win because they recruit better than #28

The difference is the 5 stars. When teams have an inordinate amount of 5 stars, they will compete for national championships because no one can match up with them athletically. Teams that don't have many 5 stars but have a ton of 4 stars will consistently win but are beatable because MSU's high 3 & low to mid 4 star talent can match up with their 4 stars. There are only 22 starters in a football game. So as long as you have 22 4 star caliber players on your roster, even if they were rated 3 stars, you can beat most anyone because each additional 4 star caliber talent, after the first 22, becomes less & less important

So yes, Bama & UGA are going to dominate & LSU will be really good but not quite elite, but once we get past those three teams, even though Auburn, A&M, Tennessee, Florida, etc may be able to start twice as many 4 stars as us, there simply isn't much a talent difference on the field. Particularly since they don't re-rank team talent once players are on campus.

Again, the difference is the elite 5 stars. Teams with those guys are the only ones that will compete for national championships, but we shouldn't use that outlier to explain the rest the college of football. Once you get past the top 5 recruiters in the country, teams 6-30 have very few 5 stars & thus can all beat each other.

If the #11 recruiter in the country is playing the #25 recruiter, I'll take the team with the better coach & QB most every time with a little wiggle room for home field advantage

https://twitter.com/bascott2010/status/1146048219379589122

[BuckyIsAB****]

Recruiting rankings are for lazy people to argue in the offseason. I've said it 1000 times, they have never won anyone a single game. Michigan, Texas, USC, are all prime examples that 5 stars dont win you jack just bc they are on your roster.

And just bc some guy who works for 247, Rivals or Scout tells you what you want to hear doesnt make you elite. Those 3 teams would struggle in our league and I doubt they would have 28 wins in the SEC since the expansion. The recruiting sites are driven by money from fans who want to feel like they know more than the average joe. If there is a way to see which sites have the most subscribers I bet you all my vcash that the top 10 recruiters are strikingly similar to the top 10 subscribers. We are talking about a system that gave an imaginary kid a 3 star ranking just bc he claimed a offer on a fake twitter profile. You are going to trust those guys to tell you who is good and who aint?

Recruiting is your lifeblood and is one of if not the most important thing a program can do, but we have taken the rankings and everything else totally overboard. Bo Bounds and Wimberly also need this so they can drive their analytics so they can talk down to you every day for a few hours on the radio. Bounds uses Bartoo and his formula, listening to those 2 guys have a conversation makes it really tough to decide who the bigger entitled douchebag is.

[Tbonewannabe]

Recruiting rankings are for lazy people to argue in the offseason. I've said it 1000 times, they have never won anyone a single game. Michigan, Texas, USC, are all prime examples that 5 stars dont win you jack just bc they are on your roster.

And just bc some guy who works for 247, Rivals or Scout tells you what you want to hear doesnt make you elite. Those 3 teams would struggle in our league and I doubt they would have 28 wins in the SEC since the expansion. The recruiting sites are driven by money from fans who want to feel like they know more than the average joe. If there is a way to see which sites have the most subscribers I bet you all my vcash that the top 10 recruiters are strikingly similar to the top 10 subscribers. We are talking about a system that gave an imaginary kid a 3 star ranking just bc he claimed a offer on a fake twitter profile. You are going to trust those guys to tell you who is good and who aint?

Recruiting is your lifeblood and is one of if not the most important thing a program can do, but we have taken the rankings and everything else totally overboard. Bo Bounds and Wimberly also need this so they can drive their analytics so they can talk down to you every day for a few hours on the radio. Bounds uses Bartoo and his formula, listening to those 2 guys have a conversation makes it really tough to decide who the bigger entitled douchebag is.

Most sure fire 5 stars are better. We have had 2 5 stars in the last decade, Chris Jones and Jeffrey Simmons. It isn't happenstance that they happened to be 2 of the best Dline to come through MSU also. Just look at UM's guys. UM might have screwed up their development but Tunsil, Treadwell, and Kimdeechee were great college players. The chance that a player is a great college player is pretty high with a 5 star.

[ShotgunDawg]

Most sure fire 5 stars are better. We have had 2 5 stars in the last decade, Chris Jones and Jeffrey Simmons. It isn't happenstance that they happened to be 2 of the best Dline to come through MSU also. Just look at UM's guys. UM might have screwed up their development but Tunsil, Treadwell, and Kimdeechee were great college players. The chance that a player is a great college player is pretty high with a 5 star.

Charles Cross is also a 5 star. Will be interesting to see how quickly he starts for us.

He really is that much more talented.

With Charles Cross at LT, Kentucky last year likely doesn't happen

[Tbonewannabe]

Charles Cross is also a 5 star. Will be interesting to see how quickly he starts for us.

He really is that much more talented.

With Charles Cross at LT, Kentucky last year likely doesn't happen

We haven't had an Oline like Cross since Sherrod. All Sherrod did was lock down the left side and get drafted in the first round. That is what getting 5 stars does for your program. Now the difference between a 3 and 4 star is debatable but most 5 stars have the potential to be 1st or 2nd round picks. They occasionally don't make it but it is a lot more rare that they are busts. I would say they have the chance to be more of a bust going somewhere like Bama and actually getting lost in the depth chart behind the other 5 stars. When Simmons came to MSU, there was basically zero chance he wasn't starting at least his sophomore year.

[ShotgunDawg]

We haven't had an Oline like Cross since Sherrod. All Sherrod did was lock down the left side and get drafted in the first round. That is what getting 5 stars does for your program. Now the difference between a 3 and 4 star is debatable but most 5 stars have the potential to be 1st or 2nd round picks. They occasionally don't make it but it is a lot more rare that they are busts. I would say they have the chance to be more of a bust going somewhere like Bama and actually getting lost in the depth chart behind the other 5 stars. When Simmons came to MSU, there was basically zero chance he wasn't starting at least his sophomore year.

Sherrod was only an 89 rated 4 star.

Now, he was a 1st round pick, so you point is correct, but Cross is by far the highest rated OL we've signed since such things were ranked

[ShotgunDawg]

I would say they have the chance to be more of a bust going somewhere like Bama and actually getting lost in the depth chart behind the other 5 stars. When Simmons came to MSU, there was basically zero chance he wasn't starting at least his sophomore year.

I think it is absolutely true.

The flip side to that is a player like Kimchee. Does he turn into a complete turd at Bama? We'll never know

[msstate7]

Charles Cross is also a 5 star. Will be interesting to see how quickly he starts for us.

He really is that much more talented.

With Charles Cross at LT, Kentucky last year likely doesn't happen

Pretty interesting you think an 18-year cross could handle #7 pick in the nfl draft last year one-on-one. I think Kentucky doesn't happen if we give Eiland help. I think cross is much more talented than Eiland, but I think he too would've needed help

[dawgs]

Recruiting rankings are for lazy people to argue in the offseason. I've said it 1000 times, they have never won anyone a single game. Michigan, Texas, USC, are all prime examples that 5 stars dont win you jack just bc they are on your roster.

And just bc some guy who works for 247, Rivals or Scout tells you what you want to hear doesnt make you elite. Those 3 teams would struggle in our league and I doubt they would have 28 wins in the SEC since the expansion. The recruiting sites are driven by money from fans who want to feel like they know more than the average joe. If there is a way to see which sites have the most subscribers I bet you all my vcash that the top 10 recruiters are strikingly similar to the top 10 subscribers. We are talking about a system that gave an imaginary kid a 3 star ranking just bc he claimed a offer on a fake twitter profile. You are going to trust those guys to tell you who is good and who aint?

Recruiting is your lifeblood and is one of if not the most important thing a program can do, but we have taken the rankings and everything else totally overboard. Bo Bounds and Wimberly also need this so they can drive their analytics so they can talk down to you every day for a few hours on the radio. Bounds uses Bartoo and his formula, listening to those 2 guys have a conversation makes it really tough to decide who the bigger entitled douchebag is.

Recruiting at a high level doesn't mean you WILL win and compete for natty's, it means you are in a much better position to win and compete for natty's. It's always easy to list off the big programs that struggled recently despite recruiting well (usc has a coaching and admin problem; Michigan has won 10 games 3 of the last 4 years, so they are close; Texas just got caught in Mack brown coasting to the end of his career and then mass transfers thinning the roster, but they are getting back under Herman), but it gets real hard to find playoff and legit natty contenders since the BCS that didn't recruit at a top 10 crootin' level. Believe auburn, Oregon, and Clemson are the only ones and they were all barely outside the top 10 level over the previous 4-5 seasons, and both Auburn and Clemson has multiple top 10 classes mixed in even if the overall ranking for the natty-winning roster was just outside the top 10.

[Jarius]

Pretty interesting you think an 18-year cross could handle #7 pick in the nfl draft last year one-on-one. I think Kentucky doesn't happen if we give Eiland help. I think cross is much more talented than Eiland, but I think he too would've needed help

But you don’t think Tennessee’s freshman 5 stars will have issues against our multiple draft picks at defensive end.

[msstate7]

But you don’t think Tennessee’s freshman 5 stars will have issues against our multiple draft picks at defensive end.

Maybe if they're left on an island. Do you actually think our DEs are on Allen's level?

[Tbonewannabe]

Maybe if they're left on an island. Do you actually think our DEs are on Allen's level?

I don't think they are on Allen's level but Rivers could work his way into a 1st-2nd round pick. Spencer was able to redshirt because of the depth we had. He did get on the field a good bit with Grantham as a freshman. That tells you that he has a lot of ability.

[msstate7]

I don't think they are on Allen's level but Rivers could work his way into a 1st-2nd round pick. Spencer was able to redshirt because of the depth we had. He did get on the field a good bit with Grantham as a freshman. That tells you that he has a lot of ability.

I think rivers is dang good. Allen is just unreal though... he went ahead of sweat in the draft.

[CadaverDawg]

If you really think about it, recruiting rankings are fool proof.

First, There are only a handful of 5 star players, so of course they're going to be damn near locks to be NFL guys.....it's what 50 guys nationwide? They better be locks, that should be fairly easy.

Next, Who typically gets the most 4 and 5 Star guys? The blue bloods. But the question is....when did they get bumped to a 4 or 5 Star? Before or after Saban and the blue bloods offered, or after? Hmm. Maybe the reason most of the best recruiters end up finishing high up in the rankings, is because the services are basically using the best recruiting programs and coaches to determine their rating of players. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

In other words, if next year Joe Moorhead offered and signed Alabama's class and Saban signed ours....I'd be willing to bet you that Alabama's class would be ranked top 5, and ours top 20ish. Why? Bc if Saban offers, that player is going to climb.....if MSU is the leader, the player most likely drops. Not all are this way, but a large majority are likely having their rating determined by how they're evaluated and offered by the Bamas, Clemson's, LSU's, Ohio States, Georgia's, etc of the world. These site owners can easily see who the top dogs are all offering and after early on, that's where their ratings and rankings come from....that's why that kid was able to get a rating for a fake recruit. If you think there is some master talent evaluators at 247, etc, you're crazy.

I think these ratings are basically coming in hindsight right after the best coaches and evaluators do their own evaluations and make offers. My opinion, but it makes sense if you think about it.

[ShotgunDawg]

Pretty interesting you think an 18-year cross could handle #7 pick in the nfl draft last year one-on-one. I think Kentucky doesn't happen if we give Eiland help. I think cross is much more talented than Eiland, but I think he too would've needed help

I think there is a pretty substantial difference between "handling" the #7 overall pick vs containing him enough to allow us to get off a few more open passes. Agree he couldn't "handle" him, but also believe he could've done a better job once Cross is up & running

[dawgs]

If you really think about it, recruiting rankings are fool proof.

First, There are only a handful of 5 star players, so of course they're going to be damn near locks to be NFL guys.....it's what 50 guys nationwide? They better be locks, that should be fairly easy.

Next, Who typically gets the most 4 and 5 Star guys? The blue bloods. But the question is....when did they get bumped to a 4 or 5 Star? Before or after Saban and the blue bloods offered, or after? Hmm. Maybe the reason most of the best recruiters end up finishing high up in the rankings, is because the services are basically using the best recruiting programs and coaches to determine their rating of players. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

In other words, if next year Joe Moorhead offered and signed Alabama's class and Saban signed ours....I'd be willing to bet you that Alabama's class would be ranked top 5, and ours top 20ish. Why? Bc if Saban offers, that player is going to climb.....if MSU is the leader, the player most likely drops. Not all are this way, but a large majority are likely having their rating determined by how they're evaluated and offered by the Bamas, Clemson's, LSU's, Ohio States, Georgia's, etc of the world. These site owners can easily see who the top dogs are all offering and after early on, that's where their ratings and rankings come from....that's why that kid was able to get a rating for a fake recruit. If you think there is some master talent evaluators at 247, etc, you're crazy.

I think these ratings are basically coming in hindsight right after the best coaches and evaluators do their own evaluations and make offers. My opinion, but it makes sense if you think about it.

If we signed saban's typical bama class, we might not rate as high when some guys lower down the list don't get the bama bunk, but bama signs so many no-brainer 5* guys, we'd absolutely still be in the running for best class in the country. Bama probably would rate a little higher signing our typical class (maybe top 15ish instead of top 25ish) due to the bama bump having a greater effect the further down the player rankings you go.

Also, they employ guys who can spot talent on their own, but of course they will also consider a guys offer sheet. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't take CFB coaches' evaluations into account with their own evaluation. It'd be like buying a car based only on your test drive and not by reading up on the reviews, both professional and user reviews.

[ShotgunDawg]

If you really think about it, recruiting rankings are fool proof.

First, There are only a handful of 5 star players, so of course they're going to be damn near locks to be NFL guys.....it's what 50 guys nationwide? They better be locks, that should be fairly easy.

Next, Who typically gets the most 4 and 5 Star guys? The blue bloods. But the question is....when did they get bumped to a 4 or 5 Star? Before or after Saban and the blue bloods offered, or after? Hmm. Maybe the reason most of the best recruiters end up finishing high up in the rankings, is because the services are basically using the best recruiting programs and coaches to determine their rating of players. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

In other words, if next year Joe Moorhead offered and signed Alabama's class and Saban signed ours....I'd be willing to bet you that Alabama's class would be ranked top 5, and ours top 20ish. Why? Bc if Saban offers, that player is going to climb.....if MSU is the leader, the player most likely drops. Not all are this way, but a large majority are likely having their rating determined by how they're evaluated and offered by the Bamas, Clemson's, LSU's, Ohio States, Georgia's, etc of the world. These site owners can easily see who the top dogs are all offering and after early on, that's where their ratings and rankings come from....that's why that kid was able to get a rating for a fake recruit. If you think there is some master talent evaluators at 247, etc, you're crazy.

I think these ratings are basically coming in hindsight right after the best coaches and evaluators do their own evaluations and make offers. My opinion, but it makes sense if you think about it.

Agree to some extent. I think the recruiting sites mostly get the players within 5 points of their "real" ability but I think you're absolutely right & that players committed to certain program get the full benefit of the doubt & for example ranked a 92 instead of the 87 they'd be ranked if they were committed to a lesser perception school

It's why top 30 recruiters can consistently compete with recruiters 7-29. The 7th ranked class has mostly 92 rated players & the 28th rated class has a lot of 87s that could absolutely be 92s if they were committed to a blue blood

[dawgs]

There's also the factor that some kids just pick the wrong situation for them to maximize their potential, whether it's a system problem, coaching staff turnover, getting in the doghouse for off field reasons, incompatible personality with the coaching staff, whatever, there's so many factors that determine the amount of development and improvement guys see between enrolling at the school and leaving the program. A talented, but raw 3* can develop into a 5* in the right situation, but in the wrong situation, they are just another backup that gets processed out of the program after a couple years. A 5* walking into the wrong situation can also underdevelop, that doesn't mean they weren't a 5* recruit, it just means they didn't pick the right situation to maximize their potential. There's no real way to quantify this factor either, it's not even the same player to player. Some guys might thrive with a new system, and some might not. Some might like a hard ass coach chewing their ass all the time and some might respond better to a teaching type coach that doesn't yell and scream, players gotta find what they think is their best path to maximizing talents and it's not all just about how fast they are and how big they are and how high they can jump.

[BuckyIsAB****]

Most sure fire 5 stars are better. We have had 2 5 stars in the last decade, Chris Jones and Jeffrey Simmons. It isn't happenstance that they happened to be 2 of the best Dline to come through MSU also. Just look at UM's guys. UM might have screwed up their development but Tunsil, Treadwell, and Kimdeechee were great college players. The chance that a player is a great college player is pretty high with a 5 star.

Anybody could have looked at that group of players and knew they had a chance to be good college players. Those guys arent hard to evaluate. Neither was Charles Cross, but bc he is at Laurel HS he wasnt evaluated correctly. He has a chance to be a legit NFL LT

[Jarius]

Maybe if they're left on an island. Do you actually think our DEs are on Allen's level?

Chauncey Rivers is going to destroy them if they don’t give them a lot of help.

[gravedigger]

Recruiting rankings are for lazy people to argue in the offseason. I've said it 1000 times, they have never won anyone a single game. Michigan, Texas, USC, are all prime examples that 5 stars dont win you jack just bc they are on your roster.

And just bc some guy who works for 247, Rivals or Scout tells you what you want to hear doesnt make you elite. Those 3 teams would struggle in our league and I doubt they would have 28 wins in the SEC since the expansion. The recruiting sites are driven by money from fans who want to feel like they know more than the average joe. If there is a way to see which sites have the most subscribers I bet you all my vcash that the top 10 recruiters are strikingly similar to the top 10 subscribers. We are talking about a system that gave an imaginary kid a 3 star ranking just bc he claimed a offer on a fake twitter profile. You are going to trust those guys to tell you who is good and who aint?

Recruiting is your lifeblood and is one of if not the most important thing a program can do, but we have taken the rankings and everything else totally overboard. Bo Bounds and Wimberly also need this so they can drive their analytics so they can talk down to you every day for a few hours on the radio. Bounds uses Bartoo and his formula, listening to those 2 guys have a conversation makes it really tough to decide who the bigger entitled douchebag is.

You have restored my faith in humanity.

[gravedigger]

Recruiting rankings are for lazy people to argue in the offseason. I've said it 1000 times, they have never won anyone a single game. Michigan, Texas, USC, are all prime examples that 5 stars dont win you jack just bc they are on your roster.

And just bc some guy who works for 247, Rivals or Scout tells you what you want to hear doesnt make you elite. Those 3 teams would struggle in our league and I doubt they would have 28 wins in the SEC since the expansion. The recruiting sites are driven by money from fans who want to feel like they know more than the average joe. If there is a way to see which sites have the most subscribers I bet you all my vcash that the top 10 recruiters are strikingly similar to the top 10 subscribers. We are talking about a system that gave an imaginary kid a 3 star ranking just bc he claimed a offer on a fake twitter profile. You are going to trust those guys to tell you who is good and who aint?

Recruiting is your lifeblood and is one of if not the most important thing a program can do, but we have taken the rankings and everything else totally overboard. Bo Bounds and Wimberly also need this so they can drive their analytics so they can talk down to you every day for a few hours on the radio. Bounds uses Bartoo and his formula, listening to those 2 guys have a conversation makes it really tough to decide who the bigger entitled douchebag is.

One thing that also skews the rankings is that all teams dont need the same position players each year or the same amount of players. These rankings would mean more if they were categorized into position. QB, Offensive skill (rb,wr,te), Offensive line, Defensive line, Defensive backs, Linebackers and special teams. Overall team star rankings are, at best, an apples to oranges comparison between teams.

And as has been mentioned. Looking at the LAST 4 years and determining how many of those contributed to the team tells the real story. Re-ranking them based on that contribution would tell us more than any pre signing day ranking would.

[Tbonewannabe]

One thing that also skews the rankings is that all teams dont need the same position players each year or the same amount of players. These rankings would mean more if they were categorized into position. QB, Offensive skill (rb,wr,te), Offensive line, Defensive line, Defensive backs, Linebackers and special teams. Overall team star rankings are, at best, an apples to oranges comparison between teams.

And as has been mentioned. Looking at the LAST 4 years and determining how many of those contributed to the team tells the real story. Re-ranking them based on that contribution would tell us more than any pre signing day ranking would.

Yep, it doesn't matter if you have a ton of 5 star WRs if you don't have any type of running game or a defense.

[gravedigger]

There's also the factor that some kids just pick the wrong situation for them to maximize their potential, whether it's a system problem, coaching staff turnover, getting in the doghouse for off field reasons, incompatible personality with the coaching staff, whatever, there's so many factors that determine the amount of development and improvement guys see between enrolling at the school and leaving the program. A talented, but raw 3* can develop into a 5* in the right situation, but in the wrong situation, they are just another backup that gets processed out of the program after a couple years. A 5* walking into the wrong situation can also under develop, that doesn't mean they weren't a 5* recruit, it just means they didn't pick the right situation to maximize their potential. There's no real way to quantify this factor either, it's not even the same player to player. Some guys might thrive with a new system, and some might not. Some might like a hard ass coach chewing their ass all the time and some might respond better to a teaching type coach that doesn't yell and scream, players gotta find what they think is their best path to maximizing talents and it's not all just about how fast they are and how big they are and how high they can jump.

VERY important point you made there. It's the reason looking at a signing day rankings and getting too excited or woeful is just jumping to unknowable conclusions. Of course we have people that go off the deep end over one player here or there without even knowing how the kid will adapt to college life. We also tend to forget the 2-3 star kids that signed last year that are moving their way up the depth chart.

Signing a top 5 class can be completely undone by having a toxic environment where kids stagnate in their development.