2018 SEC Talent Rankings W/Ls

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gravedigger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doggie_Style

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leroy Jenkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doggie_Style

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DancingRabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DancingRabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doggie_Style

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DancingRabbit

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DancingRabbit

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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...