2018 SEC Talent Rankings W/Ls

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DancingRabbit

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarius

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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......

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pollodawg

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.