For all you recruiting junkies

[state66]

Missouri has never had a top 25 class per scout. Same can be said for wisconsin(has had a few top 25 but not consistently) and so on. It all comes down to coaching.

[Homedawg]

Missouri has never had a top 25 class per scout. Same can be said for wisconsin(has had a few top 25 but not consistently) and so on. It all comes down to coaching.

Missouri is ok to use. Wisconsin is in the big sucks league. You are pulling out a couple of examples and using them as the science. Rankings arent a tell all. However, they do tell who can and won't win a national championship as a rule.

[Bubb Rubb]

Missouri is ok to use. Wisconsin is in the big sucks league. You are pulling out a couple of examples and using them as the science. Rankings arent a tell all. However, they do tell who can and won't win a national championship as a rule.

It's not an exact science. Recruiting rankings are heavily influenced by offer lists. It's like a chicken vs. egg argument. Do championship-caliber programs recruit better players, or are recruits who commit to championship-caliber programs getting higher recruiting rankings?

This is why recruiting rankings are bullshit. There are a lot of problems that Dan needs to fix, but I'm not nearly as concerned about recruiting as most of you. We are recruiting for needs and getting good players. We're probably recruiting as good or better than we ever have. Too many of our fans have penis envy over Ole Miss's recruiting. If the Rebels win big in the next couple of years, you can tell me I'm full of shit. But I doubt that happens.

[bluelightstar]

It is not a chicken and egg. Them getting higher rankings would show up on the field if it wasn't deserved. Look at the top 10 recruiting classes and you'll usually find the programs that win the most often on the field.

[msstate7]

It is not a chicken and egg. Them getting higher rankings would show up on the field if it wasn't deserved. Look at the top 10 recruiting classes and you'll usually find the programs that win the most often on the field.

What about the 10-30 spots? That's where the rankings start being a crap shoot.

[Pokerdawg44]

Missouri is a great example. Their d line is great and can really get after the passer. The o line is pretty good then you add in a helluva WR core.

Btw that great coaching Wisconsin has had over the last few years is over at Arkansas and just lost 9 in a row with 0 SEC wins.

[Dawgface]

Missouri has been a very solid team, can't deny that. But they benefited from a weak East division. Year end year out if they continue to have the same recruiting classes, they won't have these kind of years. But it does show what can be done when the stars are aligned just right. I hope I get to see that for MSU before I die.

[AlSwearengen]

no offense to the OP, but I hate posts like these. How many teams are there in DI and how many years have we been playing football? Odds are that there will be instances like you site from time to time. Wake Forest had a good run a few years ago with lowly ranked recruiting classes, but look where they are now.

At the end of the day, in the SEC, you have to have EVERYTHING in place to sustain a winning program and that starts with recruiting.

[gravedigger]

Good lord. The rankings are the byproduct of offer lists. The reason the players pan out for the eventual NC teams is they evaluate well.

But the stars and rankings are really worthless because each team has its own needs. Tyler Russell wAs a great qb and is one still. But we needed something different. Thus his value changes based on who's recruiting him.

"One star does not fit all" and bubb rubb is right. The star system is what logic professors would call "inductive logic"