2018 SEC Talent Rankings W/Ls

[PMDawg]

My take is that it's more of a "tiered" thing. Outside of the top 5 or so classes, I think you start getting "diminishing returns" fairly quickly on that ranking. A top 5 class is better, by a long shot, than the number 11 class. But is the number 11 class really that much better than the number 17 class? Probably difficult to know most years. I think there are a lot of groups of classes that are probably very similar, so the actual ranking doesn't mean much. If you have the 40th or 60th class, they both suck pretty bad, so who cares at that point?

Tier 1 - Top 5
Tier 2 - 6 thru 12 or so
Tier 3 - 13th thru 20th or so

And so on...

[TUSK]

My take is that it's more of a "tiered" thing. Outside of the top 5 or so classes, I think you start getting "diminishing returns" fairly quickly on that ranking. A top 5 class is better, by a long shot, than the number 11 class. But is the number 11 class really that much better than the number 17 class? Probably difficult to know most years. I think there are a lot of groups of classes that are probably very similar, so the actual ranking doesn't mean much. If you have the 40th or 60th class, they both suck pretty bad, so who cares at that point?

Tier 1 - Top 5
Tier 2 - 6 thru 12 or so
Tier 3 - 13th thru 20th or so

And so on...

That's a great way to look at, PM. I kinda break it down by "Avg Recruit Rating"....

=> 92 - You're prolly gonna kick the shit outta most people.
90-92 - No limits.
88-90 - This is where there is some "separation" beginning, IMO.

When you get much lower than that, the intangibles become more important and the margin for error decreases... It gets really "muddy" in the <= 86-88 range....

[msstate7]

That's a great way to look at, PM. I kinda break it down by "Avg Recruit Rating"....

=> 92 - You're prolly gonna kick the shit outta most people.
90-92 - No limits.
88-90 - This is where there is some "separation" beginning, IMO.

When you get much lower than that, the intangibles become more important and the margin for error decreases... It gets really "muddy" in the <= 86-88 range....

I love avg per recruit, but I think it loses its value some when you compare full classes to small classes, and also when kickers and punters are a part of the class. For instance, Georgia this year has a kicker that's at 78... that drags down avg per recruit, but truth is that kicker is probably a BA. Recruiting services need to rate kickers and punters correctly

[TUSK]

I love avg per recruit, but I think it loses its value some when you compare full classes to small classes, and also when kickers and punters are a part of the class. For instance, Georgia this year has a kicker that's at 78... that drags down avg per recruit, but truth is that kicker is probably a BA. Recruiting services need to rate kickers and punters correctly

I'd agree with that, however it's a much lesser evil than ranking classes on "total points", imo.... And Kickers ratings are whack, for sure.

Lots of times schools take "package" deals, legacies, ST players, etc that dilute the average.

[gravedigger]

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.

Great discussion. Kudos to you, Shotgun for starting it in a way that lead to an interesting thread.

I have to say that TALENT matters pretty big. The accuracy of talent evaluation and the impact of coaching and other circumstances are hard to measure, and therefore create a problem when trying to resolve why team A loses to team B over a period of time.

There are teams out there that are well coached and recruit well at the same time. They are the ones in the playoff each year. Simply talented teams with average coaches fall just shy. Simply well coached teams that sit in a recruiting vacuum either fall shy, spike for a year or get their coach hired away and that team makes the playoff eventually.

Joe Moorhead will do fine here given time. His offense is exciting. That will attract the type players we need to run it. We will have to pay a high price to keep Shoop if he keeps up the defense very well. That is the key to our success. We have to be willing to pay for the defense that sustains us until we are rolling on offense. Will it get us to the playoff? WAY too early to tell.

I feel a tinge of excitement this coming year for us. We still have a stable defense with a great coach. We now have a coach who has a qb with the understanding of his system to make it run like it's supposed to.

2020 and 2021 are dependent on keeping Shoop, and how the freshman qb progresses into fall of 2020.

[R2Dawg]

Talent yes to some degree but the problem is the talent evaluation isn't always accurate. See MSU teams and players and how many have turned out. Check out NFL rosters and see how many NFL players come from small schools, not power 5. The "experts" missed on the talent grading. So how do you figure that into the metrics?

[msstate7]

Talent yes to some degree but the problem is the talent evaluation isn't always accurate. See MSU teams and players and how many have turned out. Check out NFL rosters and see how many NFL players come from small schools, not power 5. The "experts" missed on the talent grading. So how do you figure that into the metrics?

If recruiting rankings are gonna be used as predictors, someone should create a site that re-ranks players each year.

[Percho]

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.

The % points for officials and talent are about equal in the last few years of our games with Bama. IMHO.

[ShotgunDawg]

At the extremes yes, it's all about the players, but not really in the middle. Within 10-12 spots in the recruiting rankings, one team may have a slight edge in margin for error, but it's more about everything else.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bobounds/status/1145867326341951488[/tweet]

[gravedigger]

If recruiting rankings are gonna be used as predictors, someone should create a site that re-ranks players each year.

It would reveal quite a bit. I seem to remember David Murray used to do it.

[ShotgunDawg]

Faux Bounds getting owned now. Classic case of an idiot. Thinks he has it all figured out.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MS_SportsGuy/status/1145872333187538944[/tweet]

[ShotgunDawg]

If recruiting rankings are gonna be used as predictors, someone should create a site that re-ranks players each year.

This is correct & one of the smartest things that has been said.

If absolutely nothing else, when mock drafts start coming out, they could just use guys with 1st round as 5 stars, 2nd-4th round as 4 stars. Just re-rank some teams on that basis, & you'd come closer.

The fact that they don't rerank/evaluate prospects after their sophomore year make the team talent rankings an absolute scam

[Tbonewannabe]

This is correct & one of the smartest things that has been said.

If absolutely nothing else, when mock drafts start coming out, they could just use guys with 1st round as 5 stars, 2nd-4th round as 4 stars. Just re-rank some teams on that basis, & you'd come closer.

The fact that they don't rerank/evaluate prospects after their sophomore year make the team talent rankings an absolute scam

If you just look at our guys who have went in the draft in the early rounds, most were 4 or 5 star guys. Sherrod, Cox, Chris Jones, Simmons. Then you have Sweat, Abram, and Slay who were Juco guys who didn't get ranked properly. I believe all were either high 3 star or 4 star guys out of high school.

Then you have the guys like McKinnley (who developed from a QB to a LB) and Banks (from a little town). With the number of camps now, more of the guys like Banks are getting recognized so it is making recruiting even more accurate.

There will always be a name factor because that is part of what drives the website hits but it is getting to the point where if you are outside the top 25 in recruiting then it would be a miracle to compete with the Bama, LSU, UGA, and UF teams. Those guys will have at least top 10-15 talent every year.