Ranking Every SEC Coach By Recruiting

[hogcard1964]

Seems about right

Thoughts?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2692692-ranking-every-sec-coach-by-their-recruiting-skills

[NotSoFastMyFriend]

No surprises here.

Here's the list of SEC coaches I would trade Coach B for:

Nick Saban

Why? His name alone would bring in more high profile talent. All the other coaches would likely struggle to stay in the so-called "Top 25" of the recruiting derby every year. Arkansas is just not an easy place to recruit to if you do it legally. It's very similar to Ole Miss in that regard. Proximity to talent is the biggest factor in signing high concentrations of upper level talent.

NOTE: Not sure why the writer went with a single source (Scout) instead of using composite or average ratings. The least accurate way to make a quantitative argument is to use the most skewed data set available. Amateur.

[hogcard1964]

I don't even like the guy, but I'm positive Malzahn could bring in higher ranked classes to Arkansas.  Along with a few others on the list.

Not that it matters since we're connected to Bvrt with a padlock.

I like to think of it like a chastity belt.  That man is hot!!!

[factchecker]

I like to think of it like a chastity belt.  That man is hot!!!

[Jim Harris]

Seems about right

Thoughts?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2692692-ranking-every-sec-coach-by-their-recruiting-skills

McElwain should be way down the list and Mullen should be up higher on the list. Basically it just reflects the consensus team recruiting rankings anyway. Who exceeds their recruiting base with their haul?: Bielema, Mullen, maybe Stoops, Muschamp.

[Pork Twain]

Does seem about right but you would have to also factor in, the draw of the school, heavily...very heavily (i.e. if recruit n was indifferent on where they went and an equal coach offered them a chance to play at Bama/LSU/Florida/Georgia vs Vandy/Mizzou/Arkansas/Miss St, where are they more likely to go).

[Broadway Rob]

I'm not a Malzahn hater.  Don't care for the guy really, but look at those classes.  He was on the hot seat heading into last season.  Doing less with more just like The Mad Hatter before being canned.

[RazorPiggie]

I said it in another thread, Auburn has never had a problem getting Jimmys and Joes.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I don't even like the guy, but I'm positive Malzahn could bring in higher ranked classes to Arkansas.  Along with a few others on the list.

Not that it matters since we're connected to Bvrt with a padlock. 

The problem with Gus and some others is that they may land highly ranked recruiting classes but don't wind up getting all that they should from that talent as it relates to wins.

Take a look at the SEC recruiting classes from 2013-2016 as ranked by 24/7. In this example I took the sum of the total points attributed to each school for the years from 2013-2016 and then divided that number by the total number of wins for each school from 2014-2016.

Yes, some coaches have changed and so they can't get all of the credit/blame for how this comes out, but I think that this is a pretty good way of determining which staff/school gets the most of their recruiting classes. This is not who won the most or who had the highest ranked classes, just who is getting the most wins out of the classes that they had over that period of time.

School              24/7 Pts (2013-2016)           Wins (2014-2016)          Points Needed Per Win

ALA                            1321.54                              40                                 33.0
MSU                            865.86                               25                                 34.6
GEO                            1093.81                              28                                 39.1
MIZ                              789.24                              20                                 39.5
ARK                              872.84                              22                                 39.7
FLA                             1048.10                              26                                 40.3
TEN                             1027.91                              25                                 41.1
OLM                             1042.90                              24                                43.5
A&M                             1055.40                             24                                 44.0
LSU                              1153.74                             25                                 46.1
AUB                              1097.06                             23                                 47.7
KEN                               817.82                              17                                 48.1
USC                               918.52                              16                                 57.4
VAN                               750.44                              13                                 57.7

It isn't just about your recruiting, it is how much you get out of the kids you recruit.

[bob slydell]

Seems about right

Thoughts?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2692692-ranking-every-sec-coach-by-their-recruiting-skills

There's so much more that goes into evaluating how good coaches are at recruiting than simply class rank.  Location, tradition, academic standards, how far their boosters like to push the rules, etc.

I would venture that it is a much tougher job to get into the top 20-25 at Arkansas than it is to get into the top 5 at Bama.

Seems pretty lazy to not do more of a deep dive into how the programs arrive at those rankings.

[hogcard1964]

I would venture that it is a much tougher job to get into the top 20-25 at Arkansas than it is to get into the top 5 at Bama.

It appears that is currently the case.

[twistitup]

There's so much more that goes into evaluating how good coaches are at recruiting than simply class rank.  Location, tradition, academic standards, how far their boosters like to push the rules, etc.

I would venture that it is a much tougher job to get into the top 20-25 at Arkansas than it is to get into the top 5 at Bama.

Seems pretty lazy to not do more of a deep dive into how the programs arrive at those rankings.

Winning attracts top talent no matter the location or tradition- Oregon is a good example of this...winning tops all

Those SEC rankings look accurate...the most successful programs are up top and it trickles down from there.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Winning attracts top talent no matter the location or tradition- Oregon is a good example of this...winning tops all

Those SEC rankings look accurate...the most successful programs are up top and it trickles down from there.

Oregon was greatly aided by a ramp up and total rebuild of internal facilities the likes of which no recruit (or coach) had ever witnessed. For a while, it was like the Taj Mahal of player facilities. And then they differentiated themselves with a change to wild and outlandish uniforms, maybe as many as 6-7 different sets courtesy of Nike. That and beginning to win at much higher levels, along with their wide open, throw it all over the place offense, helped promote their program to the point that they began to attract more highly rated recruits. From 2013-2016 they averaged the #22.5 class in the country.

[twistitup]

Oregon was greatly aided by a ramp up and total rebuild of internal facilities the likes of which no recruit (or coach) had ever witnessed. For a while, it was like the Taj Mahal of player facilities. And then they differentiated themselves with a change to wild and outlandish uniforms, maybe as many as 6-7 different sets courtesy of Nike. That and beginning to win at much higher levels, along with their wide open, throw it all over the place offense, helped promote their program to the point that they began to attract more highly rated recruits. From 2013-2016 they averaged the #22.5 class in the country.

I agree, there are many variables contributing to Ore success- but without W's the jerseys, facilities, and open offense don't matter much.

[Pork Twain]

The problem with Gus and some others is that they may land highly ranked recruiting classes but don't wind up getting all that they should from that talent as it relates to wins.

Take a look at the SEC recruiting classes from 2013-2016 as ranked by 24/7. In this example I took the sum of the total points attributed to each school for the years from 2013-2016 and then divided that number by the total number of wins for each school from 2014-2016.

Yes, some coaches have changed and so they can't get all of the credit/blame for how this comes out, but I think that this is a pretty good way of determining which staff/school gets the most of their recruiting classes. This is not who won the most or who had the highest ranked classes, just who is getting the most wins out of the classes that they had over that period of time.

School              24/7 Pts (2013-2016)           Wins (2014-2016)          Points Needed Per Win

ALA                            1321.54                              40                                 33.0
MSU                            865.86                               25                                 34.6
GEO                            1093.81                              28                                 39.1
MIZ                              789.24                              20                                 39.5
ARK                              872.84                              22                                 39.7
FLA                             1048.10                              26                                 40.3
TEN                             1027.91                              25                                 41.1
OLM                             1042.90                              24                                43.5
A&M                             1055.40                             24                                 44.0
LSU                              1153.74                             25                                 46.1
AUB                              1097.06                             23                                 47.7
KEN                               817.82                              17                                 48.1
USC                               918.52                              16                                 57.4
VAN                               750.44                              13                                 57.7

It isn't just about your recruiting, it is how much you get out of the kids you recruit.

Having spent much of my life compiling data and presenting the results to others, I am a shower more than a reader...  Here are the pictures to accompany your data.  I looked at recruiting rankings vs win total.

[DeltaBoy]

Pretty accurate ! We have to win more to recruit better.

[Pork Twain]

aTm

[jkstock04]

There's so much more that goes into evaluating how good coaches are at recruiting than simply class rank.  Location, tradition, academic standards, how far their boosters like to push the rules, etc.

I would venture that it is a much tougher job to get into the top 20-25 at Arkansas than it is to get into the top 5 at Bama.

Seems pretty lazy to not do more of a deep dive into how the programs arrive at those rankings.

Ya...this is good for off-season fodder but the reality of the situation is that there a lot more to it.

A lot of people were always enamored with Les Miles at LSU and how he was able to recruit. I say if you sent that guy to Arkansas we wouldn't be 10th or 11th anymore but instead would be dead last in the conference recruiting wise.

[hog of steele]

One thing that helps recruiting is having a super specific philosophy. Malzahn has one. He wants guys that can go fast. The plays are called from the side and he as the coach has the plan so he is recruiting just speed and stamina.

This should mean that he can make big hay with guys who might be average in other programs.

I am hoping that as more teams go for the fast offenses, we become unique enough that we have this built in advantage.

[ATU HOG]

One thing the SEC has struggled with is hiring coaches compared to other conferences.
You look at the most recent hires and one out of all those has actually had success and that is CBB. 
SEC
Smart
Muschamp
Orgeron
Jones
Gus
CBB
Stoops

Big 10
Urban
Harbaugh
Franklin
Chryst
Riley
Smith

One reason why the big10 is in a lot better shape than they were 5 years ago

[Atlhogfan1]

Stupid piece.  Put Mason at Auburn and Gus at Vandy and they suddenly switch positions in this? 

"While Arkansas fans are wondering what it'll take to land a top-rated class, when Bielema was the head coach at Wisconsin (2006-12), he never had a class finish in the top 25 of Scout.com's team rankings."  No darn? Shocked.  24/7 had them an impressive 39th this year.  32nd last year.  40th for the 2015 class.

Not posting this as a defense of Bielema but rather to point out how lazy and absurd this piece is. 


Oregon again    http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/6/26/4028244/oregon-football-ncaa-sanctions-penalties

[colbs]

I don't even like the guy, but I'm positive Malzahn could bring in higher ranked classes to Arkansas.  Along with a few others on the list.

Not that it matters since we're connected to Bvrt with a padlock. 

Yeah but would the results improve?  I mean his classes rank in the top 10 but Auburn is not finishing that high.  So they clearly are underachieving.

[Jek Tono Porkins]

I have to imagine that Bielema's record of "doing more with less" at Wisconsin contributed heavily to the decision to hire him here. Look, the simple fact of the matter is that Arkansas isn't going to pull down top ten recruiting rankings unless we cheat. There's just far too many downsides. There aren't any in-state major recruiting hotspots. There's no Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Atlanta, etc. in Arkansas. The vast majority of high school football programs in the state don't churn out D1 players regularly. We're way far away from the major recruiting hotspots and have to compete with frankly more successful programs.

So there's a couple of things you can do. One is to hire a total genius of a football coach to overcome the talent deficit and that's what we got with Petrino. Problem is those coaches are a needle in a haystack and Petrino in particular was far from a genius when it came to his personal life and ethics. Another is to hire a coach that has proven to "do more with less" by way of an extensive redshirt program that puts 22-23 year olds that have been in the weight room for 4 years against young 5-star recruits of other schools. Bielema obviously had great success with that system at Wisconsin.

However, I don't know if that system is viable anymore. One of the things I think is hurting college football is the prevalence of kids leaving early. My memory seems to indicate that say, 10 years ago, players would only leave early if they were assured of a high draft spot with the potential for high earnings. Who left early 10 or so years ago to the present? Jamaal Anderson, Chris Houston, Darren McFadden, and Felix Jones left early but they were all first or second round picks. Knile Davis was a third round pick. Hunter Henry was a first round pick. But guys like Alvin Bailey? Denver Kirkland? Didn't even get drafted. Had Darius Philon played at least another year he undoubtedly would have been a 2-3 round pick. Collins got drafted in round 5 but I don't think his stock would have improved that much with another year. Maybe I'm just totally off with that notion, but it seems that now there are a lot more NFL agents out there whispering delusions of grandeur and promising stacks of cash to college juniors.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I agree, there are many variables contributing to Ore success- but without W's the jerseys, facilities, and open offense don't matter much.

I think that you are both right and wrong in that view. The marketing of the program certainly helps to attract bigger recruits but you are right in that there isn't anything like sustained winning to draw better recruiting classes.

And with regard to the experience of Oregon, that is kind of a long story with regard to their rise to the top. It wasn't an overnight success.

Excerpts from the article:

In the days following the Ducks' 38-6 loss to the Colorado Buffaloes in the 1996 Cotton Bowl, five men sat down in Dallas, Texas, to discuss the future of athletics at the University of Oregon.

Coming out of the Ducks' second-consecutive nine-win season and ranked 18th nationally in the final polls, any questions about the transition from coach Rich Brooks to Mike Bellotti had been answered. But the five men who met in Dallas weren't worried solely about football. They were looking at the bigger picture.

The meeting consisted of executive athletic director for Nike liaison Jim Bartko@@names checked@@, Coach Bellotti, UO donor and businessman Randy Pape, donor and eventual athletic director Pat Kilkenny and Nike chairman and UO alumnus Phil Knight. With open minds and open checkbooks, the five of them agreed that, with enough support, athletics at the UO could reach unseen heights.

"We went to the Rose Bowl in the '94-'95 season and I think he saw that athletics could be a great window to make the University of Oregon great," says Jim Bartko, executive athletic director for Nike liaison. "That's when he said we should look at the logos, uniforms and investment into facilities to make the University of Oregon a national product academically and athletically."

"The other relationship between Phil and the University is obviously more personal, and most of that has centered around his generosity," Williams says.

Knight and his wife Penny have donated over $300 million to the UO and to the athletic department over the past 20 years. His first philanthropic venture was helping to fund the $27 million renovation of the library in 1994. It added 132,000 square feet and was renamed Knight Library in honor of his family.

"He's impatient with mindless stumbling blocks. He wants to see good things done and if we do in fact embark on them he wants to see them done quickly," says Dave Frohnmayer, law professor and former UO president.@@http://frohnmayer.uoregon.edu/biography/index.html@@ "It provides an ethic that being mediocre and being in the middle of the pack isn't for the state of Oregon or the University."

Frohnmayer — a native Oregonian, former attorney general and longtime friend of Knight — believes that Oregon has a falsely leveling attitude that average is okay; something Knight and UO administrators have had to battle for decades to extinguish.

"Mr. Knight doesn't share that (attitude). I don't share it, and I think that anyone who is at a good academic institution shouldn't share it," Frohnmayer says. "It doesn't mean you're looking down your nose at people, but when you don't try and be world class at what you do it transmits that mediocrity is okay to your students."

Oregon found Chip Kelly, brought him in to implement the Spread Option offense and after two years, Bellotti retired as HC to become the AD, handing the keys to the Oregon football program to Kelly (2009-2012).

So it all started back in 1996 and built momentum from that time forward. Bellotti had some good seasons but things didn't really ramp up until Kelly arrived in 2007 as the OC and then took over as the HC in 2009.

That was 11 years before Kelly arrived and 13 years before he became HC. So it isn't like they were an overnight success. It took time, patience and a long term view of attaining excellence. It appears that we are trying to build in the same way and it may not be Bielema who gets to experience the top end success (like Kelly) but he may have been a key player in the journey (like Bellotti).

Here's the link to that story.

http://www.dailyemerald.com/2012/11/15/swoosh-there-it-is/

[Atlhogfan1]

That building timeline at Oregon is one I like to use as an example of how long it can take to build a consistently competitive program when you aren't one of the select few traditional powers located in a prime recruiting area.  Wisconsin is another one.   

[MuskogeeHogFan]

That building timeline at Oregon is one I like to use as an example of how long it can take to build a consistently competitive program when you aren't one of the select few traditional powers located in a prime recruiting area.  Wisconsin is another one.   

Lots of folks think that Oregon went from not winning to winning at a high level, virtually overnight. But that isn't true. They started pouring money into the program (Phil Knight and Nike) in 1996 to build the program and facilities and it took them years to locate and hire the right coach to fit what they wanted to run, the Spread Option. But from 1996-2008 (13 years) they averaged an 8-4 record each year. From 2009-2012 (4 years) they averaged a record of 11-2 each year.

[bennyl08]

Having spent much of my life compiling data and presenting the results to others, I am a shower more than a reader...  Here are the pictures to accompany your data.  I looked at recruiting rankings vs win total.

Could you make a scatter plot showing wins vs recruiting ranking? If possible, show wins vs 247 recruiting points to avoid things like maybe the difference between 2 and 3 being 100 points while the difference b/w 12 and 30 being 20 points or the like.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

That building timeline at Oregon is one I like to use as an example of how long it can take to build a consistently competitive program when you aren't one of the select few traditional powers located in a prime recruiting area.  Wisconsin is another one.   

Lots of folks think that Oregon went from not winning to winning at a high level, virtually overnight. But that isn't true. They started pouring money into the program (Phil Knight and Nike) in 1996 to build the program and facilities and it took them years to locate and hire the right coach to fit what they wanted to run, the Spread Option. But from 1996-2008 (13 years) they averaged an 8-4 record each year. From 2009-2012 (4 years) they averaged a record of 11-2 each year.

To add to that, if you go back to 2002 and look at 24/7 class rankings for Oregon you can see when they started to ramp things up.

2002-2006    Bellotti      44, 30, 12, 29, 46

2007-2008  Bellotti/Kelly  14, 23

2009-2012    Kelly          28, 13, 12, 13

2013-2016   Helfrich       19, 21, 16, 27

2017           Taggart       19

Their best run in recruiting (rankings and system anyway) was under Kelly. I think they will return to being a good team but I'm not sure they will have a run like they did under Kelly (46-7) for quite some time. Helfrich wasn't bad (37-16) over his four years, but a step down from what they had been accustomed to with the 2016 season (4-8) being a huge catalyst for change.

[Calling All Hogs]

No surprises here.

Here's the list of SEC coaches I would trade Coach B for:

Nick Saban

Why? His name alone would bring in more high profile talent. All the other coaches would likely struggle to stay in the so-called "Top 25" of the recruiting derby every year. Arkansas is just not an easy place to recruit to if you do it legally. It's very similar to Ole Miss in that regard. Proximity to talent is the biggest factor in signing high concentrations of upper level talent.

NOTE: Not sure why the writer went with a single source (Scout) instead of using composite or average ratings. The least accurate way to make a quantitative argument is to use the most skewed data set available. Amateur.

I never thought about it but of all the SEC coaches only Saban would be an exciting hire if we were replacing CBB.

[longtimeHogfan]

Pretty accurate ! We have to win more to recruit better.

So do we win more with better recruiting or do we recruit better with more 'W's? 

[gchamblee]

So do we win more with better recruiting or do we recruit better with more 'W's?

yes

[poloprince]

One thing the SEC has struggled with is hiring coaches compared to other conferences.
You look at the most recent hires and one out of all those has actually had success and that is CBB. 
SEC
Smart
Muschamp
Orgeron
Jones
Gus
CBB
Stoops

Big 10
Urban
Harbaugh
Franklin
Chryst
Riley
Smith

One reason why the big10 is in a lot better shape than they were 5 years ago

What do you consider success?

[Inhogswetrust]

I think that you are both right and wrong in that view. The marketing of the program certainly helps to attract bigger recruits but you are right in that there isn't anything like sustained winning to draw better recruiting classes.

And with regard to the experience of Oregon, that is kind of a long story with regard to their rise to the top. It wasn't an overnight success.

Excerpts from the article:

In the days following the Ducks' 38-6 loss to the Colorado Buffaloes in the 1996 Cotton Bowl, five men sat down in Dallas, Texas, to discuss the future of athletics at the University of Oregon.

Coming out of the Ducks' second-consecutive nine-win season and ranked 18th nationally in the final polls, any questions about the transition from coach Rich Brooks to Mike Bellotti had been answered. But the five men who met in Dallas weren't worried solely about football. They were looking at the bigger picture. It's

The meeting consisted of executive athletic director for Nike liaison Jim Bartko@@names checked@@, Coach Bellotti, UO donor and businessman Randy Pape, donor and eventual athletic director Pat Kilkenny and Nike chairman and UO alumnus Phil Knight. With open minds and open checkbooks, the five of them agreed that, with enough support, athletics at the UO could reach unseen heights.

"We went to the Rose Bowl in the '94-'95 season and I think he saw that athletics could be a great window to make the University of Oregon great," says Jim Bartko, executive athletic director for Nike liaison. "That's when he said we should look at the logos, uniforms and investment into facilities to make the University of Oregon a national product academically and athletically."

"The other relationship between Phil and the University is obviously more personal, and most of that has centered around his generosity," Williams says.

Knight and his wife Penny have donated over $300 million to the UO and to the athletic department over the past 20 years. His first philanthropic venture was helping to fund the $27 million renovation of the library in 1994. It added 132,000 square feet and was renamed Knight Library in honor of his family.

"He's impatient with mindless stumbling blocks. He wants to see good things done and if we do in fact embark on them he wants to see them done quickly," says Dave Frohnmayer, law professor and former UO president.@@http://frohnmayer.uoregon.edu/biography/index.html@@ "It provides an ethic that being mediocre and being in the middle of the pack isn't for the state of Oregon or the University."

Frohnmayer — a native Oregonian, former attorney general and longtime friend of Knight — believes that Oregon has a falsely leveling attitude that average is okay; something Knight and UO administrators have had to battle for decades to extinguish.

"Mr. Knight doesn't share that (attitude). I don't share it, and I think that anyone who is at a good academic institution shouldn't share it," Frohnmayer says. "It doesn't mean you're looking down your nose at people, but when you don't try and be world class at what you do it transmits that mediocrity is okay to your students."

Oregon found Chip Kelly, brought him in to implement the Spread Option offense and after two years, Bellotti retired as HC to become the AD, handing the keys to the Oregon football program to Kelly (2009-2012).

So it all started back in 1996 and built momentum from that time forward. Bellotti had some good seasons but things didn't really ramp up until Kelly arrived in 2007 as the OC and then took over as the HC in 2009.

That was 11 years before Kelly arrived and 13 years before he became HC. So it isn't like they were an overnight success. It took time, patience and a long term view of attaining excellence. It appears that we are trying to build in the same way and it may not be Bielema who gets to experience the top end success (like Kelly) but he may have been a key player in the journey (like Bellotti).

Here's the link to that story.

http://www.dailyemerald.com/2012/11/15/swoosh-there-it-is/

I think Brooks actually got the ball rolling a little before Belotti. He was a program builder without the same financial commitment from donors that Belotti had. Ironic since he was an Oregon State grad.

[Hoggish1]

Seems about right

Thoughts?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2692692-ranking-every-sec-coach-by-their-recruiting-skills

Nos. 4-7 are way over rated in my book and all are on the hot seat for their lack luster performances despite their recruiting class rankings.

[ChicoHog]

To add to that, if you go back to 2002 and look at 24/7 class rankings for Oregon you can see when they started to ramp things up.

2002-2006    Bellotti      44, 30, 12, 29, 46

2007-2008  Bellotti/Kelly  14, 23

2009-2012    Kelly          28, 13, 12, 13

2013-2016   Helfrich       19, 21, 16, 27

2017           Taggart       19

Their best run in recruiting (rankings and system anyway) was under Kelly. I think they will return to being a good team but I'm not sure they will have a run like they did under Kelly (46-7) for quite some time. Helfrich wasn't bad (37-16) over his four years, but a step down from what they had been accustomed to with the 2016 season (4-8) being a huge catalyst for change.

Remember Kelly also was there when UW was down, USC was down and he cheated (Willie Lyles issue).  Kind of like Sumlin at A&M getting success while Texas was down, they joined the SEC and he had Manziel. Lots things have to happen sometimes for teams to have the recruiting and/or winning success. 

[greenie]

As a previous poster pointed out, it's just lazy to build this list based solely upon rankings from some service.  It's almost impossible to tell how good a recruiter someone like Saban is because that program recruits itself... and has, to a great extent, since Bear Bryant.  I'm much more impressed with Bielema, Mullen, Mason, and Stoops.  I don't much respect comments on recruiting that just point to results rather than point to specific ways we can improve. 

[ATU HOG]

What do you consider success?

Succes at a high level of college football.  Power 5 conferences as a head coach

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Remember Kelly also was there when UW was down, USC was down and he cheated (Willie Lyles issue).  Kind of like Sumlin at A&M getting success while Texas was down, they joined the SEC and he had Manziel. Lots things have to happen sometimes for teams to have the recruiting and/or winning success. 

What helped them the most was being (I believe) the first to ramp up the war of superior, over the top, Taj Mahal level of facilities. That caught the initial interest of recruits, fueled by Nike money and the varying Nike uniform combinations. They were the first, "hey, look at me", football school as I recall.

[MemphisBossHog]

Pretty accurate ! We have to win more to recruit better.

and yet if we recruit better, we should win more.  Chicken/Egg situation.   When it comes to the SEC and especially the West, it really just seems like we need to get better, bigger, stronger, faster players.   When we were on the field with Bama, LSU, Auburn and A$M, it was simply apparent to the naked eye what team had more talent, more speed, more size.  Leonard Fournette ran over us. Darrius Guice ran around and away from us.  Auburn ran for like 900 yards against us.  We could stay with teams like A&M for a lot of the game until we get down inside the 5 and cannot score on 4 straight attempts. Then we run out of gas at the end because we simply dont have the talent.

Not gonna get into the Missouri/VT debacles as they were most likely the result of bad coaching/not being prepared/making adjustments.

But Bama, LSU, Auburn, A$M are just examples of just not having the "hosses" to complete a 60 min game against teams with superior talent.

I mean honestly, its says a lot about how much our recruiting has to go when our biggest most ballyhooed signee is a 4 star cornerback.  I want this not to be the case, but if that is the kind of class BB is going to continue to bring in, then we are going to be around 10th in the conference just like BB's recruiting ranking.

[ChicoHog]

As a previous poster pointed out, it's just lazy to build this list based solely upon rankings from some service.  It's almost impossible to tell how good a recruiter someone like Saban is because that program recruits itself... and has, to a great extent, since Bear Bryant.  I'm much more impressed with Bielema, Mullen, Mason, and Stoops.  I don't much respect comments on recruiting that just point to results rather than point to specific ways we can improve. 

I remember when Saban took the Bama job Mal Moore, the Bama AD, was saying he hired the best coach in the country.  Saban said "I don't know about that, but you did hire the best recruiter in the country".  I think Saban is the best coach also but he definitely is a great recruiter. 

[NotSoFastMyFriend]

Leonard Fournette ran over us.

Nope. Fournette went 41-198 against Arkansas in his 3 years at LSU. He averaged 119.7 YPG/6.2 YPC for his career but managed only 66 YPG/4.8 YPC against the Hogs.

I mean honestly, its says a lot about how much our recruiting has to go when our biggest most ballyhooed signee is a 4 star cornerback.

You don't think that Arkansas getting its first ever out-of-state recruit with offers from all 7 teams in the SEC-West is a big deal? I suppose a video of a three year old dunking on a 10' rim would just put you right to sleep then, huh? What's life at like at the top?

[buldozer]

Looks about right.... and it stinks! We have to put more resources into recruiting overall and focus more on recruiting Tx if we are ever going to improve our program.