Bad example, Boise never played the week in and week out competition. No doubt they were well coached, but, if they would've had to play an SEC schedule week in and week out, they would've been Vandy or KentuckyQuote:
Originally Posted by jumbo
Mizzou is a good example.
You said what I was trying to say but better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Agree on Mizzou. And when people get caught up on stars, I'm always tempted to remind them that JFF was a 3* and was at one time being recruited as an "athlete."Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Which of our 4*'s will likely get bumped up to 5's? Peters, obviously, but who else?
[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;219007]Recruiting ranking only matter for the top 5-8 teams that are recruiting no brainer players that fit into any system. For example, Jamal Peters isn't very difficult to evaluate because he is a stud and fits into any system for any team. However, Keith Mixon/ Jameon Lewis are very difficult to evaluate because the offense in which they play is likely to determine their success.
Mixon, in our offense, could be a 4 star value, but Peters is a 4/5 star value for anyone. When your recruiting class is made up mostly of "no brainers" like Peters, your probably going to win, and that's the top 5-8 teams. After that it's about fit, culture, and coaching. 8-about 30 all have similar talent.[/QUOTE
Even though there are good pieces in last year's class, it didn't have the upper end talent that we need to compete in the SEC. Graham, Green, and Aeris are great pieces don't get me wrong. But we had 4 4 stars last year. This year we already have 9 and we are still in pursuit of Lewis, Adams, Patterson, Bates, Payne, and a few others. We've got to have more of those guys like Peters that are no brainers, which to me are guys ranked in the Top 300.
You are right that 8-30 are pretty similar. If we can stay in the Top 25 in recruiting every year, I think we will be able to maintain a high level of success for a long period of time, and by that I mean at least 8 wins per year. We will get good guys out of last years class, but it was ranked #35. We have to get inside that Top 25 if we want to be serious in competing with the big boys. We can develop talent as well as anyone else in the SEC in my opinion. Now if we are able to get deeper classes that come in at a higher level already, just think what more we can do.
Peters could be bumped up, and Leo Lewis (if you choose to believe that he is already committed to us) has a chance as well. The recruiting ranking people and the media won't allow MSU to have any more 5 stars than that. Screws up business.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardoMSU
[QUOTE=MetEdDawg;219028]Completely agree. Last year was a small class, so it is understood that the ranking would be lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Staying in the top 25 in recruiting should be our attainable goal. By finishing in the top 25 every year, we won't have as much talent as Bama, LSU, AUB, or TAMU, but we will have enough good players and depth to win if we play better than them.
For example, I heard the other day that Alabama has 65 4/5 star recruits on their roster. This is amazing and obviously makes them very very good, but teams can only have 11 players on the field at any given time, and 20 of those 65 aren't likely to have any meaningful impact on the game. Therefore, if MSU can get 25+ or so 4/5 recruits on the roster, then man for man in the starting lineups, our talents is similar. Then if we play better, we have a real shot to win.
What do you choose to believe, sir?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
That's ludicrous. There's a reason Bama and ohio st win a bunch and it's not because they have 3* talents artificially bumped up to 4* and 5* rankings due to the school they're committed to. They consistently sign the best players and they consistently win big. Not a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg
And yes, some teams have had big success on the backs of 3* heavy classes and some teams have flopped with 4* and 5* heavy classes. No system is perfect, but the odds show that the higher the player is rated in recruiting, the better chance the player has of becoming a good college player, all-American, NFL draft pick, etc.
still chicken or the egg though... are they a 5 because Bama evaluated and offered or because some recruiting website identified them early and made them a five and then Bama offered? I say the Bama offer comes first.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
It's like Chris Jones. I got drilled for being jacked up about a 2 star commit. The star services wouldn't give him a bump... then State offered, then OM, then Bama, etc... and all of a sudden he's a five star.
I wish they'd rate every one of our commits 2 stars
SMH....Good grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
I wouldn't be shocked if our staff feels really really good about that situation. Hence, why Caban isn't being pursued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollodawg
Ok. I thought the sarcasm in that post would have been obvious. Maybe not. So go back and read my post again but include the following addition - ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** **********Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
I don't think Boise necessarily would have been a bottom feeder, but do you really think they'd have been much better than a 7-5 team in the SEC any one of the years they were ranked top 10-15?Quote:
Originally Posted by PMDawg
I don't think they would be a bottom feeder at first, but they would over time. They simply don't have the local recruiting base to keep up, and, once they started losing games, they wouldn't be able to draw kids from southern California.Quote:
Originally Posted by thf24
Boise has less resources than any SEC school, a worse local recruiting base than any SEC school, and less money than any SEC school. Give me one reason why they wouldn't be an SEC bottom feeder within 5 years of joining our conference. There must be a bridge, because winning doesn't happen by accident.
You mean like the year they pounded SECE champion Georgia? Yeah, they would've been ok. Or the 2006 team that went undefeated and beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? Or the 2009 team that went undefeated and won Fiesta Bowl over TCU? Between 2008 and 2012 they went 61-5. So yeah I'm gonna guess they would've been better than 35-25 over that same period had they been in the SEC.Quote:
Originally Posted by thf24
Happy for Champion. Good pick up for our staff. Do we feel good about his commitment being firm? I'd love to know his guy is firm with his commitment, so our coaches can go after Javon and others now even harder.
Completely disagree. The SEC would bleed them over time. They wouldn't have to the resources to not be a bottom feeder. The reason they are able to attract players right now is because they win, and kids in Southern Cal go there because they are a good option after USC, UCLA, and Stanford fill up. Once Boise began losing games in the SEC, 10-2 becomes 8-4, 8-4 becomes 6-6, etc... The kids from Southern Cal would no longer be interested in going there. After 5 years in the SEC, Boise wouldn't be able to compete.Quote:
Originally Posted by PMDawg
I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. I'm sure OM coaches recruited champion, but now OM boosters will probably take over now that he's a 4-star. Gotta hold onto this kid...Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg