Class rankings correlation to team results

[Karma]

I know there are a few "stars don't matter" guys on here, but after reading this article I really don't see how that position is defensible.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116

[Music City Hog]

The only stat you need to know if you're goal is to win a national title:

Each of the last 10 national champions have signed a top-5 class (per Rivals) within two years of their NC.

Argument over unless your goal is something other than a national title.  10 years in a row is a huge and consistent sample size. 

[scruf]

Correlation is not the same as causation. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't but whatever makes you feel better.

[Karma]

The only stat you need to know if you're goal is to win a national title:

Each of the last 10 national champions have signed a top-5 class (per Rivals) within two years of their NC.

Argument over unless your goal is something other than a national title.  10 years in a row is a huge and consistent sample size. 

Exactly right.

[scruf]

The only stat you need to know if you're goal is to win a national title:

Each of the last 10 national champions have signed a top-5 class (per Rivals) within two years of their NC.

Argument over unless your goal is something other than a national title.  10 years in a row is a huge and consistent sample size. 

Rules were made to be broken.

[Music City Hog]

Rules were made to be broken.

They will be one day I'm sure.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

It's a simple concept, really.  We don't get many stars, therefore stars don't matter.  Ironic that the prospects that get by far the most attention around here are the highly rated ones...Agim, Whaley, Porter, Cleveland, Fulton, etc...  And if you just look at our recent history, the players that we recognize as the stars of the team were, by and large, the higher rated kids...DMac, Jones, Mallett, Knile, Adams, JWill, AC, Henry, Kirkland, Ragnow, etc...  It's no coincidence.  Are there exceptions?  Absolutely...Winston, Batman, Jamal Anderson, JC Watts, etc...  But those are the exceptions.

Now that said, I think most everybody looks at the offer sheet first to gauge a prospect, but it just so happens that, by and large, the offer sheet correlates to the number of stars.  We often just speak in terms of stars, because it's easier to do so.  Are they the be all end all?  Heck no.  But the life blood of a program, any program, is talent.  Talent is priority #1.  Then you need excellent coaching to make that talent perform. 

[Atlhogfan1]

This is one of those no darn threads.  Of course the rankings/stars have shown to matter in terms of winning the NC.  Not sure why it is necessary today.  Our program is what it is when it comes to recruiting and rankings.  Not going to be in the top 5-10.  If you can't handle being a fan of a program in an underdog situation, then it probably isn't good for you to follow Hog football or recruiting.  Stability, better than the competition evaluating recruits, development, retention are ways programs can compete above what their recruiting rankings suggest.  We have to hope for a staff with this. 

[scruf]

They will be one day I'm sure.

In time I think the ranking will improve for the Hogs but it will be a slow build. Getting to 10 wins would give the team a bit of a bump which in turn would increase the odds for wins. It's a vicious cycle if you're losing but a super cycle when you're winning.

[Wildhog]

It's a simple concept, really.  We don't get many stars, therefore stars don't matter.  Ironic that the prospects that get by far the most attention around here are the highly rated ones...Agim, Whaley, Porter, Cleveland, Fulton, etc...  And if you just look at our recent history, the players that we recognize as the stars of the team were, by and large, the higher rated kids...DMac, Jones, Mallett, Knile, Adams, JWill, AC, Henry, Kirkland, Ragnow, etc...  It's no coincidence.  Are there exceptions?  Absolutely...Winston, Batman, Jamal Anderson, JC Watts, etc...  But those are the exceptions.

Now that said, I think most everybody looks at the offer sheet first to gauge a prospect, but it just so happens that, by and large, the offer sheet correlates to the number of stars.  We often just speak in terms of stars, because it's easier to do so.  Are they the be all end all?  Heck no.  But the life blood of a program, any program, is talent.  Talent is priority #1.  Then you need excellent coaching to make that talent perform. 

Great post.

[MissippHog]

The only stat you need to know if you're goal is to win a national title:

Each of the last 10 national champions have signed a top-5 class (per Rivals) within two years of their NC.

Argument over unless your goal is something other than a national title.  10 years in a row is a huge and consistent sample size.

Just playing Devil's advocate here, you're only talking about 6 different teams to win the past 10 national championships.  Bama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Florida State and Ohio State. 

[jjdlc]

Correlation is not the same as causation. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't but whatever makes you feel better.

The data set is also extremely small.  Recruiting class rankings haven't been around that long.

[Music City Hog]

This is one of those no darn threads.  Of course the rankings/stars have shown to matter in terms of winning the NC.  Not sure why it is necessary today.  Our program is what it is when it comes to recruiting and rankings.  Not going to be in the top 5-10.  If you can't handle being a fan of a program in an underdog situation, then it probably isn't good for you to follow Hog football or recruiting.  Stability, better than the competition evaluating recruits, development, retention are ways programs can compete above what their recruiting rankings suggest.  We have to hope for a staff with this. 

This is correct.  Our recruiting rankings have been proven to be in the same general range regardless of coach or on field succes/failures.  We are who we are.

I like this staff to do as much as can been done with who we are.

[RME]

Correlation is not the same as causation. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't but whatever makes you feel better.

Bingo.

I wonder how Broyles and Bear Bryant ever survived without having Rivals and 247Sports to let them and their fanbases know about all of the 4* and 5* they were signing.

The ability of coaches to evaluate prospects and subsequently coach up players today is amazingly devalued.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

They will be one day I'm sure.

And what are the odds it's by us.  This is like the "We're close, because we almost beat Bama." argument.  Well so what, we still lost, and we also lost a hand full of other game too.  We've often had just enough talent to knock off a big boy in year, but not enough to knock them all off.  We claim 2006 as being close, but we still lost 4 freaking games.  And in 2011, we were throttled by Bama and LSU.  We really weren't that close that year either.

[Biggus Piggus]

I know there are a few "stars don't matter" guys on here, but after reading this article I really don't see how that position is defensible.

It is not the question at Arkansas. The Razorbacks are in the phase in which consistent winning will enable improved recruiting over time. It does not have to be done with the top-ranked recruiting classes, right now. What's happening now is exactly what needs to be happening. The repeated digging-up of this argument is just noise.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

In time I think the ranking will improve for the Hogs but it will be a slow build. Getting to 10 wins would give the team a bit of a bump which in turn would increase the odds for wins. It's a vicious cycle if you're losing but a super cycle when you're winning.

I agree.  We will be a slow build.  The key will be to keep a stable, competent staff in place who will build it.  I believe we have that.

[Atlhogfan1]

And what are the odds it's by us.  This is like the "We're close, because we almost beat Bama." argument.  Well so what, we still lost, and we also lost a hand full of other game too.  We've often had just enough talent to knock off a big boy in year, but not enough to knock them all off.  We claim 2006 as being close, but we still lost 4 freaking games.  And in 2011, we were throttled by Bama and LSU.  We really weren't that close that year either.

Are you having a hard time accepting what it is to be a fan of a program like Arkansas?  The odds aren't good.  If it happens, it will be an exceptional season and not the norm.  Arkansas has to put itself in position with consistency to when the breaks are in front of them whether it is schedule or whatever, they take advantage of it.  In other words, like Mizzou did in the down SECE when they kept getting opponents with key injuries.  Then build more off that season in recruiting.  Oregon was a 2 decade build and they didn't face the depth of comp we do. 

[scruf]

This is correct.  Our recruiting rankings have been proven to be in the same general range regardless of coach or on field succes/failures.  We are who we are.

I like this staff to do as much as can been done with who we are.

While the last few staffs have done about the same with their rankings I think this staff is doing a better job of player retention and that is an important component of leveling the playing field with the always-haves.

Will we get there one day? No clue. I like the direction right now and I'm going to enjoy the ride.

I think there are three schools of thoughts on star ratings:

1) Stars don't matter.
2) Stars are all that matters.
3) Stars are a part of what matters. Player retention, development, balancing classes and recruiting the right fit for your program are also very important.

I'm a #3 guy.

[duckman]

Agree with that, but here is the rub when including Arkansas In the statistics.  Arkansas high school recruits will NEVER be rated correctly due to the fact that that they play in this state.  That will as a result bring our number down somewhat.  If we can get into the top 15 year in and year out, watch out.  I still value offer lists and video MUCH more.

[scruf]

And what are the odds it's by us.  This is like the "We're close, because we almost beat Bama." argument.  Well so what, And in 2011, we were throttled by Bama and LSU.  We really weren't that close that year either.

But...But...But....Top 5 amirite?

[DukeOfPork]

I know there are a few "stars don't matter" guys on here, but after reading this article I really don't see how that position is defensible.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116

Thanks for the link.  It's the truth, I'm afraid: stars do matter.

[Atlhogfan1]

Stars and rankings matter for us in our world in the SECW.  Our comp will go through cycles but the issue is the depth of teams makes it less likely they all will have some issue of retention or development at the same time.  LSU has had a retention issue due to the NFL draft and perhaps a development issue especially at QB.  A&M appears to have issues in these areas too.  AU is good about every 3-4 years when they have a vet oline.  Then we have The Beast.  We need to worry about us as we aren't going to outrecruit these programs in the rankings for now.  Get what we need to be consistent and grow from there.  Our program hasn't had a solid foundation for winning IMO in decades. 

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Are you having a hard time accepting what it is to be a fan of a program like Arkansas?  The odds aren't good.  If it happens, it will be an exceptional season and not the norm.  Arkansas has to put itself in position with consistency to when the breaks are in front of them whether it is schedule or whatever, they take advantage of it.  In other words, like Mizzou did in the down SECE when they kept getting opponents with key injuries.  Then build more off that season in recruiting.  Oregon was a 2 decade build and they didn't face the depth of comp we do. 

I totally accept that.  It's my point.  I'm arguing against the idea that we are special and therefore the general rules don't apply to us.  That our classes are always great and underrated.  I'm not arguing that we can actually recruit top 10 classes.  Maybe some day...way, way down the road, but the landscape will need to be very different than it is now. 

[DCimport]

Would an 8 team playoff allow a team who doesn't get a top 10 recruiting class a better chance to get hot and win it all?

[Karma]

It is not the question at Arkansas. The Razorbacks are in the phase in which consistent winning will enable improved recruiting over time. It does not have to be done with the top-ranked recruiting classes, right now. What's happening now is exactly what needs to be happening. The repeated digging-up of this argument is just noise.

Not really, unless you think Arkansas is going to develop a route to national championships that literally no team has accomplished in over 20 years.

The very fact that some people still don't get it merits its discussion.

[scorekeeper]

Bingo.

I wonder how Broyles and Bear Bryant ever survived without having Rivals and 247Sports to let them and their fanbases know about all of the 4* and 5* they were signing.

The ability of coaches to evaluate prospects and subsequently coach up players today is amazingly devalued.

Not devaluing any of the two listed coaches but weren't they able to sign significantly more than 25 players per year?

[Karma]

Agree with that, but here is the rub when including Arkansas In the statistics.  Arkansas high school recruits will NEVER be rated correctly due to the fact that that they play in this state.  That will as a result bring our number down somewhat.  If we can get into the top 15 year in and year out, watch out.  I still value offer lists and video MUCH more.

Yes and no.  Who are the best players to come out of Arkansas in the last 10 years?

DMAC, Hunter, Joe Adams, Gragg, Jarius Wright, Mallett (if you count him as AR).  These were all highly recruited 4* and up.  There's been a few highly rated busts, but largely the best players to come from AR were also highly rated.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Would an 8 team playoff allow a team who doesn't get a top 10 recruiting class a better chance to get hot and win it all?

A 4-team scenario did (MSU and maybe OU), so and 8 team certainly would.  Unfortunately, UA isn't in MSU's shoes.  While I think we are very similar programs, and I think they are the program for us to mimic, we won't have the luxury of a 5 year or so span to build a program while the conference is down.

[Atlhogfan1]

Would an 8 team playoff allow a team who doesn't get a top 10 recruiting class a better chance to get hot and win it all?

I'd rather have it the old way - one game shot.  These 15 game seasons are crazy in terms of depth needed.  In the era of 11 game reg seasons and one game NC's, you had programs like GT, BYU, Washington, Clemson before they were the recruiting power they have become, Colorado, etc. win or share NC's.  Now the depth laden teams have taken over.  Superconferences have even hurt programs like Nebraska whose brand was crazy strong in recruiting.  The changes in college football have not helped the Iowas or Arkansas IMO win championships. 

[scruf]

Not really, unless you think Arkansas is going to develop a route to national championships that literally no team has accomplished in over 20 years.

The very fact that some people still don't get it merits its discussion.

I get the premise to your OP. I mean, it's been discussed on here before several times but I have a question: If you are completely unwilling to entertain the idea that a team could win a National Championship without having a Top 5 class then doesn't that make you mentally unflexible? Also, what would you do if you were in charge to get a Top 5 recruiting class at Arkansas, fire the staff? Fire the AD? What would you do differently that hasn't been done in order to get there?

You are obviously not happy with the current state of affairs or you are indifferent and want to sow seeds of discord. Which is it?

[DukeOfPork]

Not really, unless you think Arkansas is going to develop a route to national championships that literally no team has accomplished in over 20 years.

The very fact that some people still don't get it merits its discussion.

I agree.

There are people on this board who think we can consistently rank 6th or 7th in recruiting in the SEC West and then somehow beat all of those teams and go to Atlanta.

We have to keep dredging up this conversation because they don't understand that our #1 problem is not coaching; it's recruiting.

[Atlhogfan1]

I agree.

There are people on this board who think we can consistently rank 6th or 7th in recruiting in the SEC West and then somehow beat all of those teams and go to Atlanta.

We have to keep dredging up this conversation because they don't understand that our #1 problem is not coaching; it's recruiting.

Well it can happen.  It isn't likely with any consistency.  It will be the exception.  The Arkansas coach and his staff must show the ability to max out each team's ability to win each season.  If it does, some seasons will provide an opportunity to contend. 

[Vantage 8 dude]

I know there are a few "stars don't matter" guys on here, but after reading this article I really don't see how that position is defensible.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116

Sorry to burst your bubble, Karma but there's another way of looking at it. IMO while being able to gather high star recruits and top talented kids DO matter, they are not the ONLY way of determining on field success. Duh...you still have to be able to channel and develop the talent you've gotten. In other words, it does little, if any, good if all or most those stars either never make it on the field or contribute little. Say I had a 25 man class filled with 4 and 5 stars. Say too that of those young men a good portion either fail to keep their grades, get into trouble that force them out of school and/or probation, are injured and play very little. Say too that neither my staff or I have the ability to continue developing the HIGH SCHOOL level talent the rest have. Think I'd like still win a majority of my games, much less play for a conference and/or NC? Perhaps, but I believe the odds make it unlikely.
     
The point is that while recruiting the top talent is no doubt a very key starting point, it's only part of the story. I propose that the best results are usually obtained by not only gathering the stars, but keeping them and further developing their potential. The developmental portion is key-remember that the ratings are, in large part, merely evaluations of both a kid's current performance measures AND his judged future potential and development. You can have an all world high school recruit that ends up doing nothing, nada in college. We've seen that time and time again.

To conclude: I propose that while initial talent is very important, any great staff will realize their job is only just beginning. You better mold those young men into achieving to the max of their potential. You better keep those kids you worked so hard to get in the fold in order for you to reap the rewards. You also need to keep in mind that just because you may have a top class year after year that guarantees you NOTHING!! Remember names such as Mack Brown, Ed Ogeron (sp)-the former OM HC who had some really high classes but fell flat on his face-and others over the years before you get too smug and confident. However, at the same time remember the Sabans, Myers (spit), and other HCs that not only sign top classes but also seem to find the ability to get the most out of their players. It's the coaches that can both recruit top talent AND keep and mold it into something special that are the consistent winners.

[scruf]

We have to keep dredging up this conversation because they don't understand that our #1 problem is not coaching; it's recruiting.

Isn't a recruiting problem a coaching problem? How much a role does proximity to talent play? Most people want to ignore this one but if you look at population density in relation to campus location the P5 schools that consistently recruit in the Top 5 have a lot of talent within a short distance to the campus. How do you fix that at Arkansas without relocating the campus? (which you can't do)

[Atlhogfan1]

As far as Ark HS kids being underevaluated by the ranking sites, probably so.  Doesn't matter though as the state is providing so few SEC/major college players, it doesn't have much of an impact.  This goes to the uphill battle we face not just in terms of rankings.


BTW, Michigan is showing the strength of its brand not only as a program but their coach too as they are going everywhere to get players.  Very ND-like exception. 

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I agree.

There are people on this board who think we can consistently rank 6th or 7th in recruiting in the SEC West and then somehow beat all of those teams and go to Atlanta.

We have to keep dredging up this conversation because they don't understand that our #1 problem is not coaching; it's recruiting.

I would love to get to 6th or 7th.

[Atlhogfan1]

Isn't a recruiting problem a coaching problem? How much a role does proximity to talent play? Most people want to ignore this one but if you look at population density in relation to campus location the P5 schools that consistently recruit in the Top 5 have a lot of talent within a short distance to the campus. How do you fix that at Arkansas without relocating the campus? (which you can't do)

The recruiting "problem" compared to our competition will be a constant unless something unforeseen like a population influx into the state happens.  It can't be fixed.  It can be lessened by how well the staff does. 

A coaching "problem" doesn't have to be a constant.

This is the one built in disadvantage a coach faces in this job.  He can do everything well and if most of the rest of the SECW does most everything well, we are still at a disadvantage. 

[DukeOfPork]

Well it can happen.  It isn't likely with any consistency.  It will be the exception.  The Arkansas coach and his staff must show the ability to max out each team's ability to win each season.  If it does, some seasons will provide an opportunity to contend.

[DukeOfPork]

I would love to get to 6th or 7th.

In the SEC West?  We finished tied for 3rd last year, so you must be elated.

[Atlhogfan1]

Might as well quit when we believe there isn't.  Become as passionate as the Vandy fan base.

[DukeOfPork]

The recruiting "problem" compared to our competition will be a constant unless something unforeseen like a population influx into the state happens.  It can't be fixed.  It can be lessened by how well the staff does. 

A coaching "problem" doesn't have to be a constant.

This is the one built in disadvantage a coach faces in this job.  He can do everything well and if most of the rest of the SECW does most everything well, we are still at a disadvantage. 

And unfortunately, that is why we will essentially never consistently compete at the top of the SEC.

My expectations are that we keep building it slowly like Bielema is doing and just stay in the middle of the pack on a regular basis, with an occasional shot at going to Atlanta.

[scorekeeper]

I'd rather have it the old way - one game shot.  These 15 game seasons are crazy in terms of depth needed.  In the era of 11 game reg seasons and one game NC's, you had programs like GT, BYU, Washington, Clemson before they were the recruiting power they have become, Colorado, etc. win or share NC's.  Now the depth laden teams have taken over.  Superconferences have even hurt programs like Nebraska whose brand was crazy strong in recruiting.  The changes in college football have not helped the Iowas or Arkansas IMO win championships. 

I get your point but Iowa was 4 points away from being in the CFP and depth wasn't the their problem...they just lost. An eight team playoff would open doors but it would probably be the who's who of college football getting invited (2 from SEC, 2 from B10, 1 ACC team, 1 Pac team, 2 Charity Cases)

[Atlhogfan1]

And unfortunately, that is why we will essentially never consistently compete at the top of the SEC.

My expectations are that we keep building it slowly like Bielema is doing and just stay in the middle of the pack on a regular basis, with an occasional shot at going to Atlanta.

Reasonable for the near future.  Hopefully, we will have that breakthrough season and have a stable solid program and then see where it can go from there.  Perhaps our brand can get to a point to somewhat offset the location disadvantage.  We just aren't going to skip ahead in this process.  Michigan still has the brand especially with their current coach where they may skip ahead and be competing for championships again.  USC, Georgia, Florida, Texas,... not Arkansas.

[DukeOfPork]

Might as well quit when we believe there isn't.  Become as passionate as the Vandy fan base.

This is one of our best recruiting years: 9th in the SEC.  But more importantly, look at where our best recruiting year puts us in the West Division: 6th out of 7 teams.  What this says is that our coaches are going to have to coach their a**es off just to get us to 3rd in the West with a team that has 6th place talent.

[Atlhogfan1]

I get your point but Iowa was 4 points away from being in the CFP and depth wasn't the their problem...they just lost. An eight team playoff would open doors but it would probably be the who's who of college football getting invited (2 from SEC, 2 from B10, 1 ACC team, 1 Pac team, 2 Charity Cases)

But they would have had to have won 2 more games.

Old way - Clem - OU Orange Bowl, Bama - Oh St Sugar, Iowa - Stan Rose Bowl  - No 13th game conf CG's, no playoff SF, no 15th game.  5 teams with a shot to at least share a NC including Iowa if they won and OU and Oh St would have.  Instead Iowa had to get by Mich St after getting through a break of a schedule during the season.  Then it would have been Bama or Clem in a 14th game and a Bama or Clem in a 15th game.  For teams like Mich St, Ark, Iowa and even Oregon now, they will likely have to pull at least one upset if not 2 in the postseason to even play for a NC.  Before that upset could have meant a NC.  I just don't see superconferences, expanded postseason helping the underdogs win the NC. 

[Karma]

I get the premise to your OP. I mean, it's been discussed on here before several times but I have a question: If you are completely unwilling to entertain the idea that a team could win a National Championship without having a Top 5 class then doesn't that make you mentally unflexible? Also, what would you do if you were in charge to get a Top 5 recruiting class at Arkansas, fire the staff? Fire the AD? What would you do differently that hasn't been done in order to get there?

You are obviously not happy with the current state of affairs or you are indifferent and want to sow seeds of discord. Which is it?

What a ridiculous post.  I'm very happy with the current coaches.  I think our recruiting is getting consistently better.  It will have to continue to get better to reasonably expect to compete for championships, but we are at a long time high in recruiting ability on staff.

Is stating what is generally considered a fact among experts sowing discord?

[XavierZane]

I know there are a few "stars don't matter" guys on here, but after reading this article I really don't see how that position is defensible.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116

This mostly reads as someone desperate to justify their job.  I'm not easily distracted by statistics since I deal with them daily, and he's not a good enough writer for his prose to carry his argument. 

All told, seven of the Top 10 performers ranked among the Top 20 recruiters as did 12 of the Top 20.

Barely half of the Top 20 recruting classes end up in the Top 20 rankings?  Why is this is a strong argument for the importance of recruting classes? 


There are outliers on both ends -- recent powers Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor have far exceeded expectations based on their recruiting rankings, while Texas, Florida and USC have woefully underachieved.

30% of the specimens in a sample size of 20 completely and totally discrediting your main thesis... those aren't outliers, those are results.  He also "forgot" to mention Auburn, which finished 2nd in recruiting but 17th in rankings. 

But if we assume the correlations here are generally true from year-to-year, consider these odds.

But we're not assuming that.  That was the task of the writer to convince us, at which he failed. 

Power 5 teams (of which there are 65) that consistently recruit Top 20 classes have a 60 percent chance of becoming a Top 20 program and a 35 percent chance of regularly inhabiting the Top 10.

By contrast, Power 5 teams that finish outside the Top 20 in recruiting have a lower than 18 percent chance of fielding Top 20 teams and just a 6.7 percent chance of reaching the Top 10.


So no matter how well you do in recruiting, there's little to no chance that you'll have any real success, let alone win a National Championship?  35% or less likelihood of even finishing in the Top 10 at all, no matter how perfectly you recruited?  Whereas no matter how lowly a program you are, you still have a chance of reaching the Top 10. 

All those extra millions of dollars, all that expended time, all those recruiting analyses, all the hullabaloo and brouhaha around top recruiting classes... it all amounts to a 25% increase  or less in relative success.  Some years.  Maybe.  If you're not Auburn, Texas, USC, etc. 

[Atlhogfan1]

This is one of our best recruiting years: 9th in the SEC.  But more importantly, look at where our best recruiting year puts us in the West Division: 6th out of 7 teams.  What this says is that our coaches are going to have to coach their a**es off just to get us to 3rd in the West with a team that has 6th place talent.

Retention and development play roles thank goodness.  We just have a much lower margin for error in those areas.  It is a reason we can't truly compare our situation to any other program in college football as no other program has this dynamic.  We can't reach outside of the SEC to a program for an example of hope.  We have to become the exception. 

[Bubba's Bruisers]

In the SEC West?  We finished tied for 3rd last year, so you must be elated.

In the recruiting rankings?  Well, call me elated then, because I had no clue.  I will go back and look.