Are Recruiting Rankings Ruining College Football?

[confucius say]

Good stuff

What's crazy is that we've done it the right way & it's gotten us virtually no where.

We've been to 9 straight bowl games & now our season tickets sales & recruiting are begin to regress.

You'd think that 9 straight bowl games would allow you to see growth, but now we are being out recruited by terrible Arkansas & Ole Miss. What gives?

9 straight bowl games have brought us virtually zero extra brand awareness or sex appeal

On what do you base your statement that OM is out recruiting us?
On what do you base tour statement that our brand has not increased at all since 2009?

[Dawgology]

On what do you base your statement that OM is out recruiting us?
On what do you base tour statement that our brand has not increased at all since 2009?

They have out recruited us in several key positions but we have out recruited them in other positions. It becomes a wash. It seems that MSU kind of struggles recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

Our brand has definitely increased.

[confucius say]

They have out recruited us in several key positions but we have out recruited them in other positions. It becomes a wash. It seems that MSU kind of struggles recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

Our brand has definitely increased.

Ok. But would one person on here trade rosters with them?

[MedDawg]

[QUOTE=smootness;1090505]It hasn't gotten us 'virtually nowhere'.

But the reality is, we had a great coach. He is gone now. We'll see if our current coach is capable of continuing that.

College football is about coaching combined with resources and pedigree. If you have a great history with a lot of resources, it makes it easier to find a great coach, easier to keep them, and it raises both your floor and your ceiling; where you fall within that range is about who you have as coach. Same with any program, where you fall in your range is about who your coach is.

It takes a long time and a ton of success to truly raise your floor/ceiling and exist on a different plane. That, or you have to have a truly elite coach.[/QUOTE]

That's true. And it really takes both. A school can't remain on the top plane without an elite coach. See LSU, Texas, USC. NO school can just plug-and-play coaches and stay on top.

Virginia Tech almost raised themselves to a top plane, but they couldn't maintain Beamer's success. Actually Beamer couldn't maintain Beamer's best seasons.

Clemson did it, but they do have an 80k+ stadium, so they didn't start from scratch. They also benefitted from a down Florida State and easier conference to get wins. And I still say Clemson will be down to a Top 15 or Top 20 team when Dabo leaves. Clemson will be like Miami--"Remember that decade when Miami was really really good?"

[Jack Lambert]

They have out recruited us in several key positions but we have out recruited them in other positions. It becomes a wash. It seems that MSU kind of struggles recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

Our brand has definitely increased.

What is more horrible is Ole Miss had to cheat to do it. We will see how good their offense is next season after losing everything on that side of the ball.

[Jarius]

Ole Miss has not outrecruited us. They have recruited well at 2 positions and they have a 5 star tailback that’s going to be playing pro baseball. They do not have a quarter of the talent on their roster that we have.

[gravedigger]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

Seems like you are confusing which is the tail and which is the dog.

1. Those rankings are an indication of something, not a contributor. If accurate, they don?t affect, they describe.

2. They aren?t accurate. They are the creation of websites that want money, no different from the Athlons and the Lindy?s that preceded them.

3. An overload of talent on certain teams and conferences does compromise sport, because the assumption is that playing fields are level and the rules that govern them at the very least are. We know they are not evenly applied.

4. The uneven enforcement of rules takes the real excitement out of college football. It should be about performance and coaching.

5. The limitation of scholarships had a great affect on the game from the 80?sto the present. It needs to go even further. The idea that a football team can field 80-85 scholarships which is 4 times the amount of starting offensive and defensive players on the field at a given moment is ludicrous.

[ShotgunDawg]

Ole Miss has not outrecruited us. They have recruited well at 2 positions and they have a 5 star tailback that’s going to be playing pro baseball. They do not have a quarter of the talent on their roster that we have.

I think there is a pretty good chance he gets to campus. Hasn’t had a great Spring.

[ShotgunDawg]

Seems like you are confusing which is the tail and which is the dog.

1. Those rankings are an indication of something, not a contributor. If accurate, they don?t affect, they describe.

2. They aren?t accurate. They are the creation of websites that want money, no different from the Athlons and the Lindy?s that preceded them.

3. An overload of talent on certain teams and conferences does compromise sport, because the assumption is that playing fields are level and the rules that govern them at the very least are. We know they are not evenly applied.

4. The uneven enforcement of rules takes the real excitement out of college football. It should be about performance and coaching.

5. The limitation of scholarships had a great affect on the game from the 80?sto the present. It needs to go even further. The idea that a football team can field 80-85 scholarships which is 4 times the amount of starting offensive and defensive players on the field at a given moment is ludicrous.

How can you say that recruiting rankings are somewhat valid when only top 10 recruiters have won a natty or the SEC?

[drunkernhelldawg]

Interesting topic. I don?t think recruiting rankings are killing college football. I think Bama is killing college football. Like it or not, people are just flat ass sick of them winning over and over. But on top of them, it?s also that it has become pretty clear, there is only about 10 teams in this country that have any damn shot to win it all, and about 6 of them it takes a miracle to be up there. CFB has completely left the have nots in the dust and it will come back to bite the sport eventually.

I do think that the playoff system is hurting the game. It would not be as damaging if it were not the primary focus of the CFB media. The greatness of the game itself is lost in a mad rush for the final result. It's harder to enjoy every play with a discussion of the playoff situation between every one of them, starting with the first play of the season. I'd just as soon go back to not being 100 percent sure who the champion is. I love superb play, not fancy trophies.

Personally, I don't enjoy going to games as much as I did before they became a big production. Now when I go, my main thought is: Will that damn Jumbotron ever shut up?

[dawgs]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

I think there's a lot of factors that contribute to decreasing attendance (hdtv, cell phones, decreased youth participation due to CTE means younger generations aren't as invested in the sport, skyrocketing cost of attending games, etc), but I've never really considered a role crootin' ranking play in the equation. I think the idea that it creates a "Yankees vs. the royals" feel is kinda spot on tbh and does play a role. What's weird is even the elite programs have seen decreases in attendance too though, like Bama actually fills the stadium only 1-2 times per season these days, but you could argue that their crootin' dominance (coupled with on field dominance) results in complacency among the fanbase where games against Arkansas are nothing more than a formality and everyone knows it because we know the talent difference in the rosters cause we just have to scan the crootin' rankings.

[dawgs]

I do think that the playoff system is hurting the game. It would not be as damaging if it were not the primary focus of the CFB media. The greatness of the game itself is lost in a mad rush for the final result. It's harder to enjoy every play with a discussion of the playoff situation between every one of them, starting with the first play of the season. I'd just as soon go back to not being 100 percent sure who the champion is. I love superb play, not fancy trophies.

Personally, I don't enjoy going to games as much as I did before they became a big production. Now when I go, my main thought is: Will that damn Jumbotron ever shut up?

I think consolidating FBS down to essentially the P5 programs and only having FBS teams play other FBS teams would trigger a renewed boost in interest to the regular season tbh. I don't even bother setting aside 3 hours of my day to watch state play Jackson st or south Alabama types, instead I use those days to rack up brownie points with the with and/or enjoy some early fall weather before the weather goes to shit. If I happen to be home and free for those games, I'll watch, but not going out of my way.

[HoopsDawg]

How can you say that recruiting rankings are somewhat valid when only top 10 recruiters have won a natty or the SEC?

recruiting rankings lost a lot of credibility with the 247-Scout merger. 247 became a joke when they went with participation trophies and got rid of 2 star rankings. They have a few 5 stars that my grandmother could recognize, a decent amount of 4 stars then everyone else gets a 3.

The best players win the most games obviously. You and I can go ahead and list the top 7 recruiting classes for 2020 without knowing a single kid in anyone's class. Spoiler alert: It's going to be Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc.

[LC Dawg]

Money drives college football and it will eventually lead to its downfall.

[Relardo Sidney]

Attendance is down because everyone can sit on their fat ass at home and watch every game just like me. Isn't that what you do too?

[ScoobaDawg]

Bud Elliot, the recruiting dude over at SB Nation, created the "Blue Chip Ratio" metric to track this. And, at least according to his data set (which he says goes back to the mid-aughts), the talent floor for championship-caliber teams is having a roster consisting of roughly 50% 4- and 5-star recruits. As of last summer, there were 13 teams with that level of talent and only four teams (including A&M and Florida from the SEC) within striking distance over the next year or two.

Good times, right?

Very interesting. Well.. we are a far far away per that standard but getting closer. 4 year average (including 19 signing class) is 22.2% . Mullen's last 2 years were only 17.5% vs Moorheads first 2 classes being 26.8%

Have to see if that will continue.. and Joe can pull in some more top talent.

[BuckyIsAB****]

After listening to all the radio shows talk about the decline of college football attendance today, I began to wonder why.

There are many reasons why, but are recruiting rankings one of them?

Are recruiting rankings bringing about a Yankees vs Kansas City Royals feel to college football?

As more data is built that verify the importance of recruiting rankings, are they causing a resignation among many fan bases that are forced with the reality that unless their school attempts to cheat their ass off, they have no chance of winning anything?

Prior to recruiting rankings, were we all more ignorant on how we compared to championship caliber teams while now we fully understand that the sport is pointless unless you support 1 of about 10 schools?

I don't blame the recruiting guys because they found a way to make money by filling a void, but the education of talent to the masses could be contributing to people not caring any longer.

No. Attendance is down bc every game is on TV. Nothing is ruining college football, people just cant compete with Saban year to year. Clemson and UGA are getting there.

There is virtually no difference in the class ranked 25 and 15. If you think those guys on 247 and Rivals/Scout are Bill Walsh then they should matter to you, but to people who are sane they shouldnt mean as much

[ShotgunDawg]

No. Attendance is down bc every game is on TV. Nothing is ruining college football, people just cant compete with Saban year to year. Clemson and UGA are getting there.

There is virtually no difference in the class ranked 25 and 15. If you think those guys on 247 and Rivals/Scout are Bill Walsh then they should matter to you, but to people who are sane they shouldnt mean as much

1. Sure, much of the issue that the games are on TV but I think it's naive and lazy to believe that's 100% of the issue.

2. Much of these recruiting rankings are computerized, model based predictions based on size, speed, vertical leap, etc. Very similar to what NFL and college programs have. football evaluations are much less about gut feel and eye for talent as many think. You can slot most of these guys into a talent lane based purely off measurables. That's why when people say recruiting rankings are invalid, I pretty much chalk those people up as people that are ignorant to what they are actually calling invalid.

[smootness]

1. Sure, much of the issue that the games are on TV but I think it's naive and lazy to believe that's 100% of the issue.

2. Much of these recruiting rankings are computerized, model based predictions based on size, speed, vertical leap, etc.

No, they are not. At all. Which actually lends them to being more accurate.

But yes, TV kills attendance far more than recruiting rankings.

[dawgs]

recruiting rankings lost a lot of credibility with the 247-Scout merger. 247 became a joke when they went with participation trophies and got rid of 2 star rankings. They have a few 5 stars that my grandmother could recognize, a decent amount of 4 stars then everyone else gets a 3.

The best players win the most games obviously. You and I can go ahead and list the top 7 recruiting classes for 2020 without knowing a single kid in anyone's class. Spoiler alert: It's going to be Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc.

Eh look at the rating value, not just the starzzz if you wanna discern the difference between players. An 89 and an 81 are both 3*, but clearly the 89 is considered the better player and closer to a 4* than the bottom of the 3*.