MSU 2 Deep Talent Level vs Ole Miss 2 Deep talent level

Bo Bounds made a comment this morning that Ole Miss had top 15 talent & MSU had top 30 talent. These kinds of comments always bug me because all that was considered was recruiting rankings, rather than attrition, success in the program, & who is actually playing on the field.

So, to crosscheck this, I took the two deeps of both Ole Miss & MSU, looked up their high school rankings, & compared both teams. I used the 247 rankings & went by the numerical value & not star ratings, as that is much more accurate since the difference between a 3 & 4 star seems large, while the difference between an 88 rating & 89 is virtually nothing.

Here are the findings:

- Ole Miss will field a two deep this season that has an average rating of 88.7 & MSU will field a two deep that averages 86.2

- Interestingly, at 13 out of the 22 starting positions, MSU has the lower rated recruit listed as the starter

- MSU's offense, which is likely to be one of the top offenses in the SEC this season, has an average rating of 85.2

- Ole Miss' offense, which should finish somewhere between 6-12 in the conference, has an average star rating of 88.3

- Ole Miss' defense, which is supposed to be one of the best in the country this season, has an average rating of 89.2

- MSU's defense that apparently has no talent, has an average star rating of 87.2

These are the facts & below is the data. Personally, I think it is clear that 247, while a great website, has done an absolutely pathetic job at rating MSU recruits. There are first round talents & All Americans that have below 90 ratings. Plus, when 13 or your 22 projected starters are the lower rated recruit, that should raise some eyebrows about how the starters were evaluated.

Ole Miss

Treadwell 99
Jones 83
Tunsil 99
C Morris 90
A Morris 89
Bouldin 84
Still 85
Conyers 82
Bell 84
Taylor 97
Cooper 87
Rawlings 84
Engram 84
Liggins 86
Adebyejo 86
Stringfellow96
Core 80
Pack 93
Kelly 87
Buchanan 90
Walton 87
Wilkins 91
Brown 85
Ward 98
Nkemdech 100
Speaks 91
Gross 89
Hamilton 85
Haynes 88
Youngblood 77
D Nkem 85
Johnson 96
Russell 88
Conner 98
Moore 83
Shepherd 89
Webster 88
Hilton 84
C Brown 84
Elston 87
Hampton 95
Bridges 91
Moore 93

Mississippi State
Prescott 87
Fitzgerald 81
Shumpert 91
Williams 90
Morrow 83
F Brown 84
Wilson 82
Gray 91
Ross 91
Myles 85
Walley 81
Hutcherson 85
Warren 83
Jenkins 83
Malone 84
Calhoun 81
Clayborn 83
Johnson 85
Desper 86
Thomas 88
Senior 81
Rankin 91
Jefferson 87
Coleman 86
R Brown 84
Calvin 86
Jones 99
Hoyett 79
James 92
Adams 85
Gray 85
Jung 87
R Brown 88
Green 89
Brown 91
Harris 81
Coman 83
Bryant 86
Market 87
Peters 97
Calhoun 85
Cleveland 82
Redmond 89
Graham 91

Prescott (87) vs Buchannan (90)
Treadwell (99) vs Bear (82)
Lil Nkim (85) vs R Brown (84)

This tells me all I need to know about the comparisons. If Bo wants to use rankings, he should update them based on current impact and development. Prescott would be 95+, Bear would be 90+ and no way Denzel is better than Richie. Granted, I don't know their roster as well, so I'm sure there are some adjustments there too....maybe someone here can help with that. Anyone want to re-rate these guys based on development/contribution?

Complete joke of a rating system. It just goes to show you that all of it is first rate bullshit! Maybe if actual ex-football players and coaches were involved it would be better.

I don't want to come across tough on 247 for these ratings, as every site did the same, and I have respect for talent evaluators and realize it's an impossible job. However, these results speak for themselves, if the 247 talent evaluation staff worked for an NFL team, they would have likely been fired.

I do understand that the 247 scouts are likely fighting their grading scale, as stars and a one number rating are awful ways to rate players. Does the star indicate the present/future/ or ceiling of the player?

I think where recruiting services are struggling with MSU is that we are recruiting talented yet raw prospects and Ole Miss is recruiting more refined players and the recruiting sites are having incredible difficulty with how to balance those two variables.

What i suggest 247 do, is go to a 3 grade system. Instead of giving a player one rating such as an 88, allow the evaluator to put a present/future/ Ceiling grade on the player.

For example: instead of Prescott being an 87, it would have been much more fair for his grade to be a 84 present in high school/ 87 what we think he will be/ 95 what he could be if everything comes together.

Lastly, this is why I laugh when people act like they know something when comparing players like Metcalf and AJ Brown. Simply, you don't know anything. Sure, it's good debate, but calling someone elses opinion ridiculous or he has to be a top 5 player in the state, makes you look dumb in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoverDog

Prescott (87) vs Buchannan (90)
Treadwell (99) vs Bear (82)
Lil Nkim (85) vs R Brown (84)

This tells me all I need to know about the comparisons. If Bo wants to use rankings, he should update them based on current impact and development. Prescott would be 95+, Bear would be 90+ and no way Denzel is better than Richie. Granted, I don't know their roster as well, so I'm sure there are some adjustments there too....maybe someone here can help with that. Anyone want to re-rate these guys based on development/contribution?

---

While I completely agree with you, Richie was an 88, Ryan Brown was the 84, which is a joke. A good comparison would be Ryan Brown who was a low 3 star to Channing Ward who was a top 5 DE in the nation.

Hey Bo,
Great Qbs elevate the talent around them decent Qbs decrease talent level around them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DistrictDawg92

While I completely agree with you, Richie was an 88, Ryan Brown was the 84, which is a joke. A good comparison would be Ryan Brown who was a low 3 star to Channing Ward who was a top 5 DE in the nation.

---

Gotcha...thank you for catching and correcting that.

Interesting stuff, Shotgun. Thanks.

I don't suppose you could do a comparison of ours vs Bama's 2 deep could you? The reason why, I'd like to try and quantify what ~2 points difference equates to in wins/elite status. Because when I look at a ~2 point difference between us and OM, plus some awful misses by the ratings systems, I see a very very small difference in overall talent despite hearing constantly how much more talented OM is overall.

In other words, is Bama 5+ points better than us on the 2 deep overall? Because that would make sense when looking at their recruiting. If they're only ~3-4 points higher, it shows that 2 points means more than I think it does in terms of us vs OM.

If DeRunnya is a 87 and Treadwell a 99...then those 2 points are the equivalent to running a 4.31 forty vs a 4.33 forty...doesn't equivalate to shit.

Thanks for the write up

Cadaver, I'll run Alabama's in a while

To add to my original post, if we make conservative, reasonable corrections to the egregious mistakes that were made in the evaluations for both Ole Miss & MSU players that have played and are know quantities, it is shocking how close the two talent levels come out to. Simply, the talent that Ole Miss & MSU are fielding on Saturdays is basically the same, with MSU being significantly better at the most important position on the field.

If we make the following changes:

Engram 84 93
Core 80 88
Buchanan 90 85
Ward 98 85
Gross 89 92
Haynes 88 92
D Nkem 85 88
Johnson 96 92
Hilton 84 88

Mississippi State

Prescott 87 97
F Brown 84 89
Wilson 82 95
Myles 85 88
Warren 83 88
Malone 84 92
Clayborn 83 90
Calhoun 81 90
Desper 86 88
Thomas 88 84
Senior 81 88
R Brown 84 92
Redmond 89 95

Ole Miss fields a two deep with an average star rating of 88.9 & MSU's is 88.1, which is well within the margin for error & a negligible amount. MSU & Ole Miss have the same talent level

Damn, this is good stuff. Just goes to show how skewed these rankings are. There is a lot of bias in the rankings of prospects from schools outside MS. Especially suburban high schools.

The average rating for Alabama's two deep is 93.3.

Their offense comes in at 92.5 & their defense at a crisp 94.08

Two things about Bama:

- They are the opposite of MSU in the ratings. Their player receive the best case scenario & MSU's players often receive the pessimistic case or are not known.

- If you are a recruit & don't have a 95 or better rating, then going to Bama is going to kill your career because you won't receive the opportunity to get better. MSU is putting sub-95 rated players in the NFL, year after year, & Alabama's sub-95 rated players almost exclusively are on 2nd string & thus never get the opportunity to become an NFL player. It's not that Alabama isn't developing players, it's that the game of football doesn't allow you to play more than 11 players at one time & thus the other players don't get the opportunity.

Here is the data:

Foster 98
Falkins 88
Stewart 95
Sims 96
Black 97
Kief 91
Robinson 99
Kirven 92
Pierschbacher 96
Luatua 87
Kelly 90
Hassanauer 92
Bozeman 87
Taylor 90
Jackson 94
Greene 94
Howard 99
Smith 84
Nysewander85
Coker 86
Cornwell 96
Henry 99
Drake 94
Allen 99
Pettway 89
Reed 89
Lake 86
Robinson 98
Tomlinson 91
Devall 93
Anderson 96
Foster 99
Hamiton 91
Ragland 97
Lee 95
Williams 96
Brown 99
Sylve 94
Jackson 88
Jones 97
Smith 96
Harrison 91
Jones 97
Humphrey 99
Smith 95
Washington 89

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

They are the opposite of MSU in the ratings. Their player receive the best case scenario & MSU's players often receive the pessimistic case or are not known.

---

I agree, but over the last couple of years some of our guys have been getting ratings bumps after they've been committed to us and were seen in camp. I think people are realizing our ability to identify and develop raw talent and therefore we are getting more national guys to come cover our camps. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Interpolation_Dawg_EX

I agree, but over the last couple of years some of our guys have been getting ratings bumps after they've been committed to us and were seen in camp. I think people are realizing our ability to identify and develop raw talent and therefore we are getting more national guys to come cover our camps. Thoughts?

---

I agree & this is evidenced by MSU's depth chart currently having a lower rated starting over a high rated at 13 or 22 positions. Many times those high rated players are younger.

Also, I still think they recruiting sites are having a tough time figuring out how to balance risk versus ceiling.

For example: who is better: A 92 rated player that is extremely refined but only has a ceiling of 93 or an 87 rated player who is raw but has a ceiling of 97?

These are questions that NFL & MLB teams deal with in their draft rooms on a daily basis, and there is no correct answer. It mostly comes down to what team needs are. But recruiting websites are stuck on this question & it's why their rating system (Stars & one numerical ratings) sucks. The scouts are unable to say to say what they want to say. MSU players are reaching their ceiling, but that ceiling was always there. It didn't come out of thin air.

For example: De'Runnya is rated an 82, but that's because he was raw. Anyone could have seen that he was tall, athletic, & fast, but the recruiting websites were stuck with how to value a high ceiling/low floor prospect just like every professional draft room. Figuring how to balance this is how teams win World Series & Super Bowls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thick

Complete joke of a rating system. It just goes to show you that all of it is first rate bullshit! Maybe if actual ex-football players and coaches were involved it would be better.

---

This is a novel idea. Of course, scout would probably hire Billy Brewer.

There are 10's of thousands of high school football players in this country who play at vastly different levels of competition. There are the traditional powerhouse teams, the teams that play in the higher divisions of their state, and then there are the Maben High Schools of the world. The rating services do not have the resources in personnel, time or expertise to properly evaluate all of these players. I believe that they rely heavily on local sports writers who cover high school football to initially identify the top players. They are trying to evaluate 17 and 18 year old kids who may or may not have reached their ceiling. In addition, the higher classification in which an individual plays, the more likely that individual is to receive a higher rating. The problem is that these ratings are all very subjective and are influenced by which colleges have made offers to that player.

This is why college coaches do their own evaluations and totally ignore the rating services. Only the fanbases care about recruiting rankings as determined by the rating services.

The above is only my opinion and has no basis in knowledge or fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgPoundtheRock

There are 10's of thousands of high school football players in this country who play at vastly different levels of competition. There are the traditional powerhouse teams, the teams that play in the higher divisions of their state, and then there are the Maben High Schools of the world. The rating services do not have the resources in personnel, time or expertise to properly evaluate all of these players. I believe that they rely heavily on local sports writers who cover high school football to initially identify the top players. They are trying to evaluate 17 and 18 year old kids who may or may not have reached their ceiling. In addition, the higher classification in which an individual plays, the more likely that individual is to receive a higher rating. The problem is that these ratings are all very subjective and are influenced by which colleges have made offers to that player.

This is why college coaches do their own evaluations and totally ignore the rating services. Only the fanbases care about recruiting rankings as determined by the rating services.

The above is only my opinion and has no basis in knowledge or fact.

---

That's a lame excuse by the recruiting services. College coaches have to actually coach their players on campus and be there a good bit of time and yet they still somehow manage to find these under the radar guys.

These recruiting sites have guys that pretty much their only job is to.....follow recruiting. You would think that they would be able to find these players out with the time on their hands.

It also doesn't explain why they had Chris Jones rated a 2-3 star guy before he blew up. He was "known about". Doesn't explain why they consistently undervalue players from Rosa Fort despite the fact that their players almost always seem to pan out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

That's a lame excuse by the recruiting services. College coaches have to actually coach their players on campus and be there a good bit of time and yet they still somehow manage to find these under the radar guys.

These recruiting sites have guys that pretty much their only job is to.....follow recruiting. You would think that they would be able to find these players out with the time on their hands.

It also doesn't explain why they had Chris Jones rated a 2-3 star guy before he blew up. He was "known about". Doesn't explain why they consistently undervalue players from Rosa Fort despite the fact that their players almost always seem to pan out.

---

I agree. It is an excuse. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that the recruiting services rating are fallible. Therefore, to try to compare the talent level of any given team versus another based on recruiting services rankings is an exercise in futility. It's fun, but the only thing that counts is when those two teams strap it on Saturday to find out who has the better talent (and coaching and all the other things that make college football).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Bo Bounds made a comment this morning that Ole Miss had top 15 talent & MSU had top 30 talent. These kinds of comments always bug me because all that was considered was recruiting rankings, rather than attrition, success in the program, & who is actually playing on the field.

So, to crosscheck this, I took the two deeps of both Ole Miss & MSU, looked up their high school rankings, & compared both teams. I used the 247 rankings & went by the numerical value & not star ratings, as that is much more accurate since the difference between a 3 & 4 star seems large, while the difference between an 88 rating & 89 is virtually nothing.

Here are the findings:

- Ole Miss will field a two deep this season that has an average rating of 88.7 & MSU will field a two deep that averages 86.2

- Interestingly, at 13 out of the 22 starting positions, MSU has the lower rated recruit listed as the starter

- MSU's offense, which is likely to be one of the top offenses in the SEC this season, has an average rating of 85.2

- Ole Miss' offense, which should finish somewhere between 6-12 in the conference, has an average star rating of 88.3

- Ole Miss' defense, which is supposed to be one of the best in the country this season, has an average rating of 89.2

- MSU's defense that apparently has no talent, has an average star rating of 87.2

These are the facts & below is the data. Personally, I think it is clear that 247, while a great website, has done an absolutely pathetic job at rating MSU recruits. There are first round talents & All Americans that have below 90 ratings. Plus, when 13 or your 22 projected starters are the lower rated recruit, that should raise some eyebrows about how the starters were evaluated.

Ole Miss

Treadwell 99
Jones 83
Tunsil 99
C Morris 90
A Morris 89
Bouldin 84
Still 85
Conyers 82
Bell 84
Taylor 97
Cooper 87
Rawlings 84
Engram 84
Liggins 86
Adebyejo 86
Stringfellow96
Core 80
Pack 93
Kelly 87
Buchanan 90
Walton 87
Wilkins 91
Brown 85
Ward 98
Nkemdech 100
Speaks 91
Gross 89
Hamilton 85
Haynes 88
Youngblood 77
D Nkem 85
Johnson 96
Russell 88
Conner 98
Moore 83
Shepherd 89
Webster 88
Hilton 84
C Brown 84
Elston 87
Hampton 95
Bridges 91
Moore 93

Mississippi State
Prescott 87
Fitzgerald 81
Shumpert 91
Williams 90
Morrow 83
F Brown 84
Wilson 82
Gray 91
Ross 91
Myles 85
Walley 81
Hutcherson 85
Warren 83
Jenkins 83
Malone 84
Calhoun 81
Clayborn 83
Johnson 85
Desper 86
Thomas 88
Senior 81
Rankin 91
Jefferson 87
Coleman 86
R Brown 84
Calvin 86
Jones 99
Hoyett 79
James 92
Adams 85
Gray 85
Jung 87
R Brown 88
Green 89
Brown 91
Harris 81
Coman 83
Bryant 86
Market 87
Peters 97
Calhoun 85
Cleveland 82
Redmond 89
Graham 91

---

That was taken out of context. I referenced according to the recruiting rankings. If you've listened to the show more than that 1 segment, then you would know I've given Mullen credit as an outstanding talent evaluator & developer of talent. However, looking at modern day recruiting rankings (post 2000 or 2002).....only elite recruiters have won the national championship. Oregon is a semi-elite recruiter and played for the national championship twice. You have to recruit in the top-20....annually to have a shot to win it all (at a minimum). What Mullen & MSU accomplished last yr (ranked #1) was an anomaly and remarkable. Out of Bounds has acknowledged & discussed that dozens of times.
Out of Bounds podcast: http://*******/1JHXEOj
Out of Bounds Radio App w podcast: http://*******/1l69XZN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

That was taken out of context. I referenced according to the recruiting rankings. If you've listened to the show more than that 1 segment, then you would know I've given Mullen credit as an outstanding talent evaluator & developer of talent. However, looking at modern day recruiting rankings (post 2000 or 2002).....only elite recruiters have won the national championship. Oregon is a semi-elite recruiter and played for the national championship twice. You have to recruit in the top-20....annually to have a shot to win it all (at a minimum). What Mullen & MSU accomplished last yr (ranked #1) was an anomaly and remarkable. Out of Bounds has acknowledged & discussed that dozens of times.
Out of Bounds podcast: http://*******/1JHXEOj
Out of Bounds Radio App w podcast: http://*******/1l69XZN

---

Sorry Bo, but I'm afraid you're missing the point. He's saying, you're using a very flawed ratings system to define "elite recruiting"? Based on the numbers in the OP showing MSU and OM as basically even in recruiting on the 2 deep, how can you claim OM as "elite" recruiters compared to Dan?

If A (OM) = B (MSU), then A can't be elite and B be non-elite. It's like me using the preseason Top 25 polls to determine the National Champion....its flawed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

That was taken out of context. I referenced according to the recruiting rankings. If you've listened to the show more than that 1 segment, then you would know I've given Mullen credit as an outstanding talent evaluator & developer of talent. However, looking at modern day recruiting rankings (post 2000 or 2002).....only elite recruiters have won the national championship. Oregon is a semi-elite recruiter and played for the national championship twice. You have to recruit in the top-20....annually to have a shot to win it all (at a minimum). What Mullen & MSU accomplished last yr (ranked #1) was an anomaly and remarkable. Out of Bounds has acknowledged & discussed that dozens of times.
Out of Bounds podcast: http://*******/1JHXEOj
Out of Bounds Radio App w podcast: http://*******/1l69XZN

---

We drug him out!!!!

I can respect this, & I apologize for not listening to the entire show.

I do think it's incredibly logical to say that the teams with the best players should/will win the national championship, but I think a "non-elite recruiter" with an "A" QB is going to win one soon. With the amount of money that is now in college football. schools like MSU, Ole Miss, Baylor, TCU, Oregon, Arizona, etc... are now able to hold onto their coaching staffs for extended periods of time, where as in the past those staffs would be purged by "elite recruiters" when they had a run a poor seasons. This allows 2nd tier recruiters to build programs & recruit to systems like never before. Along with this, football is becoming more of a thinking mans game, & the quality of high school football being played in rural areas has elevated, & all this leads to there being more parity across the sport. Simply, the talent levels of the players that play in the game (the top 50 or so players) is closer than it's ever been between the "elite recruiters" & top 30 recruiters.

Lastly, with my post, I was just pointing out that, regardless of what the recruiting rankings say, MSU & Ole Miss are running out virtually the same talent level on Saturdays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

That was taken out of context. I referenced according to the recruiting rankings. If you've listened to the show more than that 1 segment, then you would know I've given Mullen credit as an outstanding talent evaluator & developer of talent. However, looking at modern day recruiting rankings (post 2000 or 2002).....only elite recruiters have won the national championship. Oregon is a semi-elite recruiter and played for the national championship twice. You have to recruit in the top-20....annually to have a shot to win it all (at a minimum). What Mullen & MSU accomplished last yr (ranked #1) was an anomaly and remarkable. Out of Bounds has acknowledged & discussed that dozens of times.
Out of Bounds podcast: http://*******/1JHXEOj
Out of Bounds Radio App w podcast: http://*******/1l69XZN

---

Well, this post has sparked my interest (I guess it's nearly football season again). According to the recruiting rankings, MSU should be a 6-6 team every year. And yes, our #1 ranking was an anomaly last year..... one that I'll never forget. But according to recruiting rankings / numbers, Oregon is an anomaly every year. They average between an 85 and a 89 every year when it comes to numbers. Yes, they have their elites like De'Anthony Thomas but they also had a 3* (86 points) quarterback who won the heisman.

OM has been recruiting like a team with 14 national titles in their pocket. They are being slated as having one of the best defenses for 2015. But MSU is being slammed as having a young, inexperienced defense that's going to give up a lot of points. And honestly, we may give up a ton of points. But I don't think an OM team that gave up and got hammered by Arkansas 30 - 0 is a top 15 defense. I also don't believe a team that can't run the ball will be a top 15 team. OM's leading rusher didn't even rush for 600 yards. MSU nearly had 2 players rush for over 1,000 yards.

What I'm saying is, talent projections don't always produce success. If that was the case, Georgia would win the East every year. Talent, sportsmanship, comradery, and confidence produce success. After talking to several coaches, including Tusk's dark lord, I've determined that the greatest success on the field is produced by the men who put on the pads. It's not a number or star, it's their will to beat the guy in front of them. Do you think the numbers predicted a 3*, third string qb to win the national championship?

And you may have to recruit in the top-20 to win it all, but you don't have to recruit in the top-20 to be relevant. MSU may not win it all this year, but they're going to give a lot of teams hell.

What I took from this is we get solid return on our inve$tment. **** kinda

http://img.pandawhale.com/134857-wat...spoon-3GqO.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

We drug him out!!!!

I can respect this, & I apologize for not listening to the entire show.

I do think it's incredibly logical to say that the teams with the best players should/will win the national championship, but I think a "non-elite recruiter" with an "A" QB is going to win one soon. With the amount of money that is now in college football. schools like MSU, Ole Miss, Baylor, TCU, Oregon, Arizona, etc... are now able to hold onto their coaching staffs for extended periods of time, where as in the past those staffs would be purged by "elite recruiters" when they had a run a poor seasons. This allows 2nd tier recruiters to build programs & recruit to systems like never before. Along with this, football is becoming more of a thinking mans game, & the quality of high school football being played in rural areas has elevated, & all this leads to there being more parity across the sport. Simply, the talent levels of the players that play in the game (the top 50 or so players) is closer than it's ever been between the "elite recruiters" & top 30 recruiters.

Lastly, with my post, I was just pointing out that, regardless of what the recruiting rankings say, MSU & Ole Miss are running out virtually the same talent level on Saturdays.

---

I agree with several points you made and we've discussed that for years. However, over the last 15 yrs, elite recruiters have won it all. Has the Southeast exploded with "B" players? Absolutely. Has the spread (or leveraging space) leveled the playing field? Hell yes. Is the QB position the great equalizer? Yes. Do programs like MSU, TCU, Mich St & S. Carolina have a better shot today to compete and win big games? Yes. Does a program (any program) need to consistently recruit in the top-20 b/c the margin for error is so thin on Saturdays? Yes. Has cable $$ and strong strength & dev programs had an impact? Yes. But bottom line, a program needs talent first & foremost.....the development piec is a critical component & Mullen & Co. have done an amazing job. Enjoying the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

I agree with several points you made and we've discussed that for years. However, over the last 15 yrs, elite recruiters have won it all. Has the Southeast exploded with "B" players? Absolutely. Has the spread (or leveraging space) leveled the playing field? Hell yes. Is the QB position the great equalizer? Yes. Do programs like MSU, TCU, Mich St & S. Carolina have a better shot today to compete and win big games? Yes. Does a program (any program) need to consistently recruit in the top-20 b/c the margin for error is so thin on Saturdays? Yes. Has cable $$ and strong strength & dev programs had an impact? Yes. But bottom line, a program needs talent first & foremost.....the development piec is a critical component & Mullen & Co. have done an amazing job. Enjoying the debate.

---

To that point, I still think it's only a matter of time. IMO if you are capable of winning 10 regular season games in a P5 conference, you're only a few breaks away from a natty. Also, as far as spread/space offenses leveling the playing field for non-elite recruiting schools, we are still very much working with a small sample size of 10 years or so at most. First time I can remember those offenses elevating programs into the natty discussion was 2007 when Oregon was in line to play for a title until Dennis Dixon blew out his knee against Arizona and then West Virginia was in line to play for the natty until they choked against a bad Pitt team. Now obviously those are examples of non-elite teams coming up short, but the point is to illustrate that we are talking a very recent development in the landscape of CFB here, and there's been plenty of elite recruiting schools to come up short/choke/have injuries derail a natty run too. And Oregon was an all-time ridiculous faux tackle run/balancing act away from going to OT against auburn, so it's hard for me to believe the difference in Oregon being capable of winning a natty and not is the inch between dyer's knee and the fiesta bowl turf.

Also, it's pretty hard to say how programs like Florida, f$u, Miami, etc. were recruiting on a yearly basis prior to their breakthroughs because those happened in a pre-recruiting ranking world. I'm sure they were doing fine being in Florida, but would they have been top 10 classes every year? Or were they finding diamonds in the rough and polishing them? All 3 of those programs were somewhere between irrelevant and mediocre prior to the late 70s/early 80s.

I tried to listen to more than one segment, but seems like I picked the wrong day. Nothing but rebel dribble this morning and repeats from the Tom L interview on swag kelly. One thing I did learn is that MGK has ADD and will be on amphetamines this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

To that point, I still think it's only a matter of time. IMO if you are capable of winning 10 regular season games in a P5 conference, you're only a few breaks away from a natty. Also, as far as spread/space offenses leveling the playing field for non-elite recruiting schools, we are still very much working with a small sample size of 10 years or so at most. First time I can remember those offenses elevating programs into the natty discussion was 2007 when Oregon was in line to play for a title until Dennis Dixon blew out his knee against Arizona and then West Virginia was in line to play for the natty until they choked against a bad Pitt team. Now obviously those are examples of non-elite teams coming up short, but the point is to illustrate that we are talking a very recent development in the landscape of CFB here, and there's been plenty of elite recruiting schools to come up short/choke/have injuries derail a natty run too. And Oregon was an all-time ridiculous faux tackle run/balancing act away from going to OT against auburn, so it's hard for me to believe the difference in Oregon being capable of winning a natty and not is the inch between dyer's knee and the fiesta bowl turf.

Also, it's pretty hard to say how programs like Florida, f$u, Miami, etc. were recruiting on a yearly basis prior to their breakthroughs because those happened in a pre-recruiting ranking world. I'm sure they were doing fine being in Florida, but would they have been top 10 classes every year? Or were they finding diamonds in the rough and polishing them? All 3 of those programs were somewhere between irrelevant and mediocre prior to the late 70s/early 80s.

---

Agree, I don't think the sample size is near large enough to make definitive statements about where you have to recruit to win the NC. It' only a matter of time IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

I agree with several points you made and we've discussed that for years. However, over the last 15 yrs, elite recruiters have won it all. Has the Southeast exploded with "B" players? Absolutely. Has the spread (or leveraging space) leveled the playing field? Hell yes. Is the QB position the great equalizer? Yes. Do programs like MSU, TCU, Mich St & S. Carolina have a better shot today to compete and win big games? Yes. Does a program (any program) need to consistently recruit in the top-20 b/c the margin for error is so thin on Saturdays? Yes. Has cable $$ and strong strength & dev programs had an impact? Yes. But bottom line, a program needs talent first & foremost.....the development piec is a critical component & Mullen & Co. have done an amazing job. Enjoying the debate.

---

You're still missing the point, Bo! YOU are claiming we aren't recruiting consistently in the top 15-20 based ON A RECRUITING RANKING. Meanwhile, our list of players getting drafted says we ARE recruiting that high. Quit letting a number, generated by a bunch of keyboard heroes that watch a guy's highlight film or get their info from Yancy Porter, tell you how well we recruit! Until you quit basing "elite" recruiters on a number on a website, you'll never stop being wrong about this.

Paul Johnson's "ranking" has been 20+ points lower than Mullen' s yet he spanked Mullen, and was a close loss to FSU from being in the playoffs. I bet he would also tell you you're crazy if you think "43rd ranked class on 247" is accurate...it's not even close. You can't base a team's success on a number that is partially based on how many traditional powers offered a kid. That doesn't define "elite" recruiters, and only leaves you with a chicken vs egg debate on how good a player truly is.

Quit basing your "facts" on fictitious rankings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

You're still missing the point, Bo! YOU are claiming we aren't recruiting consistently in the top 15-20 based ON A RECRUITING RANKING. Meanwhile, our list of players getting drafted says we ARE recruiting that high. Quit letting a number, generated by a bunch of keyboard heroes that watch a guy's highlight film or get their info from Yancy Porter, tell you how well we recruit! Until you quit basing "elite" recruiters on a number on a website, you'll never stop being wrong about this.

Paul Johnson's "ranking" has been 20+ points lower than Mullen' s yet he spanked Mullen, and was a close loss to FSU from being in the playoffs. I bet he would also tell you you're crazy if you think "43rd ranked class on 247" is accurate...it's not even close. You can't base a team's success on a number that is partially based on how many traditional powers offered a kid. That doesn't define "elite" recruiters, and only leaves you with a chicken vs egg debate on how good a player truly is.

Quit basing your "facts" on fictitious rankings.

---

Those subjective recruiting rankings have been accurate over the years as far as predicting the national champions. So in that regard, Bo is stating a fact. Arguing for MSU's case is putting the burden of proof on you, not Bo. His position is sound.

Seems to me 2 different points are being argued. The guys on the board are arguing relevance & being a good team year in & year out doesn't have to be tied in to a yearly top 20 recruiting class. Bo is saying to win a National Championship you do have to recruit at an elite level. Both sides are right. We've proven that we can win consistently without yearly Top 20 classes. So has Ga Tech, TCU, South Carolina, etc. By contrast none of those teams have a won a title yet & until they do Bo & everyone who look at recruiting rankings as a barometer to success will be able to say yea you guys were good but you haven't won anything yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5 Star

Those subjective recruiting rankings have been accurate over the years as far as predicting the national champions. So in that regard, Bo is stating a fact. Arguing for MSU's case is putting the burden of proof on you, not Bo. His position is sound.

---

only because the top tier talent is so easy to rate- and the blue bloods draw the top guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

Seems to me 2 different points are being argued. The guys on the board are arguing relevance & being a good team year in & year out doesn't have to be tied in to a yearly top 20 recruiting class. Bo is saying to win a National Championship you do have to recruit at an elite level. Both sides are right. We've proven that we can win consistently without yearly Top 20 classes. So has Ga Tech, TCU, South Carolina, etc. By contrast none of those teams have a won a title yet & until they do Bo & everyone who look at recruiting rankings as a barometer to success will be able to say yea you guys were good but you haven't won anything yet.

---

This

10 win seasons in today's college football by a P5 team means you are talented- that's the bottom line. It doesn't matter wtf your recruiting rankings have been.

If you only judge a program by winning a NC- then what- 124 teams are failures every year? The teams IYOK mentioned have been winning at a top 15 level without being in the top 20 in recruiting rankings. That's a fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

Seems to me 2 different points are being argued. The guys on the board are arguing relevance & being a good team year in & year out doesn't have to be tied in to a yearly top 20 recruiting class. Bo is saying to win a National Championship you do have to recruit at an elite level. Both sides are right. We've proven that we can win consistently without yearly Top 20 classes. So has Ga Tech, TCU, South Carolina, etc. By contrast none of those teams have a won a title yet & until they do Bo & everyone who look at recruiting rankings as a barometer to success will be able to say yea you guys were good but you haven't won anything yet.

---

And what I'm saying is the sample size is far too small and the development of the spread/space offenses among P5 level competition far too recent to draw any conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

And what I'm saying is the sample size is far too small and the development of the spread/space offenses among P5 level competition far too recent to draw any conclusion.

---

What do you consider the sample size? Recruiting sites have been around for 10-15yrs. The spread is just the newest wave just like the run & shoot. The facts have been proven up to this point that the teams who get elite talent win National Championships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

What do you consider the sample size? Recruiting sites have been around for 10-15yrs. The spread is just the newest wave just like the run & shoot. The facts have been proven up to this point that the teams who get elite talent win National Championships.

---

The current spread ideas are far more effective than the run & shoot. And there are various forms of it. It's not a one size fits all label.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

The current spread ideas are far more effective than the run & shoot. And there are various forms of it. It's not a one size fits all label.

---

What is your sample size?

I think another part of this debate is this:

Is Ole Miss closer to winning a National Title than MSU because they recruit at a "semi-elite level" or are we both in similar spots because the talent we put on the field on Saturdays is basically the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

I think another part of this debate is this:

Is Ole Miss closer to winning a National Title than MSU because they recruit at a "semi-elite level" or are we both in similar spots because the talent we put on the field on Saturdays is basically the same?

---

I think we're in similar spots. Also all of their upper end players are leaving after this year so if they don't contend for a title this year how big of a step back do they take next year without the super elite talent on the roster anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5 Star

Those subjective recruiting rankings have been accurate over the years as far as predicting the national champions. So in that regard, Bo is stating a fact. Arguing for MSU's case is putting the burden of proof on you, not Bo. His position is sound.

---

You're missing my point too. It's a chicken vs egg argument. If Saban is drooling over a guy because he fits a need, that kid will get 5 stars or 4 minimum...that doesn't mean he's any better than one of our 3 stars after a redshirt year...so has anybody ever thought that it's a combination of players, development, AND coaching that wins Titles?

When was the last time Georgia won a Title despite top 5-10 classes every year? Yall are drawing way too many conclusions off of that number on 247, when the truth is, Bama, LSU, USC, etc, could have signed our EXACT classes the last 3 years, and they would have all been Top 10 classes because THEY signed them and therefore the kids "must be good".

So is Bama, Auburn, etc truly signing that much better classes than us? Or are their classes that "good" because they're Bama's class? I'm not saying they aren't getting more "ready made" talent on the front in...but talent is talent, and after 2 years in our system, we have several players better than or equal to Bama's on the field. And we've reached a point where all of our guys are getting those years of development before having to contribute....so we are fielding a team that is very comparable talent-wise with the big boys. They just may not have been as fine tuned when they signed.

So by the time our guys take the field, they're comparable to what Bama has on the field...so what does that initial ranking have to do with their chances of winning it all versus ours? Not a damn thing. But what does have an impact, is COACHING and continued development throughout their careers, and that is what National Champions have. See Bama, TCU, Oregon, etc. It's also the reason LSU is trending down...because talent is there, but coaching is not.

For people to make a blanket statement about a recruiting number equalling success, is garbage. You'll see a perfect example up North this year. That team is talented enough to compete for a Title, but Bc Freeze hasn't developed a QB in 4 years, they won't sniff one.

Just my opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

You're missing my point too. It's a chicken vs egg argument. If Saban is drooling over a guy because he fits a need, that kid will get 5 stars or 4 minimum...that doesn't mean he's any better than one of our 3 stars after a redshirt year...so has anybody ever thought that it's a combination of players, development, AND coaching that wins Titles?

When was the last time Georgia won a Title despite top 5-10 classes every year? Yall are drawing way too many conclusions off of that number on 247, when the truth is, Bama, LSU, USC, etc, could have signed our EXACT classes the last 3 years, and they would have all been Top 10 classes because THEY signed them and therefore the kids "must be good".

So is Bama, Auburn, etc truly signing that much better classes than us? Or are their classes that "good" because they're Bama's class? I'm not saying they aren't getting more "ready made" talent on the front in...but talent is talent, and after 2 years in our system, we have several players better than or equal to Bama's on the field. And we've reached a point where all of our guys are getting those years of development before having to contribute....so we are fielding a team that is very comparable talent-wise with the big boys. They just may not have been as fine tuned when they signed.

So by the time our guys take the field, they're comparable to what Bama has on the field...so what does that initial ranking have to do with their chances of winning it all versus ours? Not a damn thing. But what does have an impact, is COACHING and continued development throughout their careers, and that is what National Champions have. See Bama, TCU, Oregon, etc. It's also the reason LSU is trending down...because talent is there, but coaching is not.

For people to make a blanket statement about a recruiting number equalling success, is garbage. You'll see a perfect example up North this year. That team is talented enough to compete for a Title, but Bc Freeze hasn't developed a QB in 4 years, they won't sniff one.

Just my opinion

---

No, I get your point. I just disagree.

As far as your question about whether Bama and Auburn classes are better than ours, the answer is yes. Over the long term, their classes have been better, that's why they beat us more often than not. And yes, coaching plays a big part, Bobby Petrino will attest to that, he elevates talent more than any other. But the facts are, you aren't winning a title (according to history) without elite recruiting (however you measure it - and the sites are as good as any source at this point, especially the 247 composite). I understand there are variations here and there, but over the long haul the ratings have gotten it right.

I'm looking long-term, big picture, and going by the rules not the exceptions.