Was Arkansas recruiting really that bad from 2002-2005 to cause such poor teams

[hogblade]

Since recruiting and not coaching seems to be the issue for many on why Arkansas has loss so many games under Nutt. Was Arkansas's recruiting really all that bad during the "investigation years"? I'm only able to pull up the last 4 years, but this includes current Freshmen, Sophomore, Juniors and Seniors on the team, but admittedly will not include any 5th year seniors on the team. However, I was able to find that Max Emfinger had us ranked as the 13th best class in 2001 according to a USA Today Article dated Feb 7th 2001.

Arkansas's Recruiting Ranking as viewed by Rivals Scouting.

2002- 26th best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas- Alabama 30th, Iowa St.30th(tied with Alabama) Michigan St. 32nd, Purdue 38th, Boston College 43rd, Virginia Tech 45th, Texas Tech 48th, Wisconsin 50th, Iowa(was pre-season top10) 51st, Minnesota 55th, Louisville 59th, Georgia Tech 63rd, California 64th, and then lets include Vanderbilt 76th

2003- 29th best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas-   Purdue 31st, Louisville 35th, UCLA 36th, Minnesota 37th, Wisconsin 40th, Ohio St 41st, Iowa 43rd, Texas Tech 44th, Iowa St 46th, Alabama 49th, Georgia Tech 50th, Michigan St- 66th, and of course, Vanderbilt 78th

2004- 22nd best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas- California 23rd, Boston College 24th, Arizona St 31st, Notre Dame 32nd, Texas Tech 33rd, UCLA 34th, Iowa 38th, Wisconsin 39th, Virginia 40th, Virginia Tech 41st, Iowa St- 42nd, Georgia Tech 56th, Minnesota 58th, Louisville 64th, and our friend, Vanderbilt 66th,

2005- 24th best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas- UCLA 26th, Purdue 29th, Arizona St 32nd,  Wisconsin 33rd, Michigan St- 35th, Texas Tech 37th, Notre Dame 40th, Louisville 45th,  Boston College 49th, Minnesota 55th, Iowa St 58th, Georgia Tech 62nd, and the stormin' Vanderbilt 87th

Over the last 4 years, Arkansas has averaged out to be the 25th best recruiting class. Now there is not much difference between the 25th and 29th, so consider a plus/minus 4 margin. With the 25th best recruits in the country on campus, you would think that Arkansas would be a Top 25 polled team perhaps last year or this year or the year before, you get the point.  We are not a Top 25 team nor close to it.

Unfortunately recruiting has not translated to a Top 25 finishing team in any of the last 4 years. With only the 2003 team flirting with the Top 25 at all.

The Last 4 Years Avg recruiting rank
Vanderbilt-78th- Loss (We loss largely because of quarterback Jay Cutler who wanted to come to Arkansas, but we did not offer a scholie to Cutler, but instead gave his scholarship to Tarvaris Jackson according to Otis Kirk.)
Alabama(#15)- 29th- Loss

Current AP Top 25 teams and their recruiting rankings
Virginia Tech( #3)- 32nd
Michigan St(#11)- 37th
California(#12)-28th
Notre Dame(#13)-27th
Arizona St(#14)-26th
Texas Tech(#16)-41st
Wisconsin(#17)-40th
Minnesota(#18)-51st
Virginia(#19)- 23rd
UCLA(#20)-24th
Boston College(#21)-35th
Purdue(#22)-30th
Iowa St(#23)-43rd
Louisville(#24)-52nd
Georgia Tech(#25)-58th

Pre-Season Top 10 Iowa-36th

Another excuse that the Arkansas sports media and the Arkansas coaching staff has pushed on the fans so we wouldn't expect much, was that in 2005 Arkansas is starting a quarterback, Robert Johnson, with virtually no experience at all. In 2005, Top 25 teams: Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech, California, and Texas Tech, also all started quarterbacks with virtually no experience at all. In 2004, Top 25 teams : Tennessee, Ohio St, Michigan, Texas Tech all start quarterback with no experience. In 2003, USC starts a quarterback with no experience at all and wins back to back National Championships with a third one looming.

With 15 Top 25 teams with lower recruiting rankings, Arkansas has good enough players to be a Top 25 team, I'm sure the coaches would love to deflect the blame onto recruiting and the "investigation" but once again the numbers are not on the coaches side. Similar to political manuevers where if you repeat things enough such as "War for Oil", the goal is people will start to believe it. The facts are that our recruiting was good, no matter how Houston spins it to the press. There never should have been a re-building period.  It's the coaches who are not good enough and not the players after all. The coaching has been very poor which has led to poor player development as well. It's time for a change and Sadly, I don't know if there is an argument worth reading that says we should keep Houston Nutt.

[DevilHog]

A recruiting class ranked 22-29 nationally, places you in the bottom half of the SEC. We consistently finish in the bottom half. You MUST recruit in comparison of those you play.

[Since 1894]

Good Post

[hogblade]

Devilhog, so in your theory Arkansas is just as good as Virginia Tech, Cal, Notre Dame, Arizona St, etc... We just don't get to play them. In The SEC, Florida, Tenn, LSU, Georgia, Auburn consistently out-recruit us. We only play 3 of those this year.

My point is with good coaching, you can have a good team regardless if your talent is top 10 or not.

[rathog1]

Another excuse that the Arkansas sports media and the Arkansas coaching staff has pushed on the fans so we wouldn't expect much, was that in 2005 Arkansas is starting a quarterback, Robert Johnson, with virtually no experience at all.

A few questions
1) Was Johnson here last year?
2) What was our record last year?
3) If you knew you had a senior QB and had to start an unproven QB the next year, How many throws would you try to get the inexperienced one?
4) Think of the number of attempts that YOU would try to get Johnson last year then look up how many he actually had and tell me the difference.

[hogblade]

Rathog, I don't understand your point. I agree with you, but my point is Robert Johnson is not the only quarterback on a major NCAA team that has to start with no experience, its fairly common nowdays and common in the SEC.

[Biggus Piggus]

Was Arkansas's recruiting really all that bad during the "investigation years"?

I don't know how many times we have to re-address this.  Those Rivals ratings for Arkansas were ridiculously overstated.  The player ratings for 2002 were especially wacky.  Reggie Banks and Lucas Jackson were 4-star busts.  Anybody who argues that our recruiting was great back then is not trying very hard.

[DevilHog]

Devilhog, so in your theory Arkansas is just as good as Virginia Tech, Cal, Notre Dame, Arizona St, etc... We just don't get to play them. In The SEC, Florida, Tenn, LSU, Georgia, Auburn consistently out-recruit us. We only play 3 of those this year.

My point is with good coaching, you can have a good team regardless if your talent is top 10 or not.

I agree that coaching is, at the very least, as important as talent. I will also say that if recruiting top quality athletes is not all that important, then why do we spend all the resources we do trying to land big time guys, and why have we spent the last year wondering about Mustain. To answer your question, we are probably, talent wise, as good as some of those teams.

[hogblade]

I'm sure I can find 4 star Busts on every team in the SEC though!
I still think we had good enough players

[hogblade]

Devil-Hog- I agree as well that "talent-wise", but Is Arkansas playing as football as well as them. No way, which falls back on the coaching!

[jabohog]

The recruiting rankings are ridiculous and are not really a good measure at all. The fact that allot of the ranking was based on players that didn't pan out and are not even here because of academic casualties. Our record indicates that whoever ranked the classes was wrong. Nutt doesn't recruit needed players as is evidenced by lack of LBs, FS, etc. The staff is also not a very good judge of defensive talent. Take a look at were we are lacking and you can see the bungles in recruiting by this staff. QB comes to mind on offense. My point is winning teams have high ranking recruiting classes usally because they are winning. Not often is it the other way around.

[Biggus Piggus]

I'm sure I can find 4 star Busts on every team in the SEC though!
I still think we had good enough players

You are wrong.  This is not debatable.  Please read.

http://www.hogville.net/articles/RecruitingClassof2000GonePainLingers.html

[hogblade]

The recruiting rankings may be inaccurate, but can they be wrong about all 15 teams? I think most teams recruit some highly tout players that don't pan out and recruit lowly tout players that become stars. If Nutt doesn't recruit the "right" players, well Nutt is still at fault.

Of course if a team starts to win they will begin to recruit better players, but some teams can still win without the 4 star and 5 star players, and have all 3 stars who are coached properly. Its how you coach the 3 stars. We do not do well with the talent we have.
Ranked teams starting QBs
Reggie Ball- Starting QB Georgia Tech- 3 star quarterback.
Bryan Cuptio- Starting QB Minnesota- 2 star quarterback
John Stocco- Starting QB Wisconsin- 3 star quarterback
Bret Meyer- Starting QB Iowa St- 3 star quarterback
Matt Ryan- new starting Qb Boston College- 3 star quarterback

Highly touted QBs on non-ranked teams
Omar Jacobs- Bowling Green  2 star quarterback
Jared Zabransky- Boise State  Not Ranked even
Alex Smith- Utah #1 draft Pick in NFL draft  - 2 star quarterback

[Jim Harris]

Since recruiting and not coaching seems to be the issue for many on why Arkansas has loss so many games under Nutt. Was Arkansas's recruiting really all that bad during the "investigation years"? I'm only able to pull up the last 4 years, but this includes current Freshmen, Sophomore, Juniors and Seniors on the team, but admittedly will not include any 5th year seniors on the team. However, I was able to find that Max Emfinger had us ranked as the 13th best class in 2001 according to a USA Today Article dated Feb 7th 2001.

Arkansas's Recruiting Ranking as viewed by Rivals Scouting.

2002- 26th best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas- Alabama 30th, Iowa St.30th(tied with Alabama) Michigan St. 32nd, Purdue 38th, Boston College 43rd, Virginia Tech 45th, Texas Tech 48th, Wisconsin 50th, Iowa(was pre-season top10) 51st, Minnesota 55th, Louisville 59th, Georgia Tech 63rd, California 64th, and then lets include Vanderbilt 76th

2003- 29th best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas-   Purdue 31st, Louisville 35th, UCLA 36th, Minnesota 37th, Wisconsin 40th, Ohio St 41st, Iowa 43rd, Texas Tech 44th, Iowa St 46th, Alabama 49th, Georgia Tech 50th, Michigan St- 66th, and of course, Vanderbilt 78th

2004- 22nd best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas- California 23rd, Boston College 24th, Arizona St 31st, Notre Dame 32nd, Texas Tech 33rd, UCLA 34th, Iowa 38th, Wisconsin 39th, Virginia 40th, Virginia Tech 41st, Iowa St- 42nd, Georgia Tech 56th, Minnesota 58th, Louisville 64th, and our friend, Vanderbilt 66th,

2005- 24th best recruiting class. Current Top 25 ranked teams with lower recruiting rankings than Arkansas- UCLA 26th, Purdue 29th, Arizona St 32nd,  Wisconsin 33rd, Michigan St- 35th, Texas Tech 37th, Notre Dame 40th, Louisville 45th,  Boston College 49th, Minnesota 55th, Iowa St 58th, Georgia Tech 62nd, and the stormin' Vanderbilt 87th

Over the last 4 years, Arkansas has averaged out to be the 25th best recruiting class. Now there is not much difference between the 25th and 29th, so consider a plus/minus 4 margin. With the 25th best recruits in the country on campus, you would think that Arkansas would be a Top 25 polled team perhaps last year or this year or the year before, you get the point.  We are not a Top 25 team nor close to it.

Unfortunately recruiting has not translated to a Top 25 finishing team in any of the last 4 years. With only the 2003 team flirting with the Top 25 at all.

The Last 4 Years Avg recruiting rank
Vanderbilt-78th- Loss (We loss largely because of quarterback Jay Cutler who wanted to come to Arkansas, but we did not offer a scholie to Cutler, but instead gave his scholarship to Tarvaris Jackson according to Otis Kirk.)
Alabama(#15)- 29th- Loss

Current AP Top 25 teams and their recruiting rankings
Virginia Tech( #3)- 32nd
Michigan St(#11)- 37th
California(#12)-28th
Notre Dame(#13)-27th
Arizona St(#14)-26th
Texas Tech(#16)-41st
Wisconsin(#17)-40th
Minnesota(#18)-51st
Virginia(#19)- 23rd
UCLA(#20)-24th
Boston College(#21)-35th
Purdue(#22)-30th
Iowa St(#23)-43rd
Louisville(#24)-52nd
Georgia Tech(#25)-58th

Pre-Season Top 10 Iowa-36th

Another excuse that the Arkansas sports media and the Arkansas coaching staff has pushed on the fans so we wouldn't expect much, was that in 2005 Arkansas is starting a quarterback, Robert Johnson, with virtually no experience at all. In 2005, Top 25 teams: Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech, California, and Texas Tech, also all started quarterbacks with virtually no experience at all. In 2004, Top 25 teams : Tennessee, Ohio St, Michigan, Texas Tech all start quarterback with no experience. In 2003, USC starts a quarterback with no experience at all and wins back to back National Championships with a third one looming.

With 15 Top 25 teams with lower recruiting rankings, Arkansas has good enough players to be a Top 25 team, I'm sure the coaches would love to deflect the blame onto recruiting and the "investigation" but once again the numbers are not on the coaches side. Similar to political manuevers where if you repeat things enough such as "War for Oil", the goal is people will start to believe it. The facts are that our recruiting was good, no matter how Houston spins it to the press. There never should have been a re-building period.  It's the coaches who are not good enough and not the players after all. The coaching has been very poor which has led to poor player development as well. It's time for a change and Sadly, I don't know if there is an argument worth reading that says we should keep Houston Nutt.

The unnamed  SEC coach who was quoted in the Sporting News' preseason mag saying about the UA's 2003 recruiting class that "they didn't sign nobody" knew what he was talking about.

[Biggus Piggus]

hogblade, those 2002-03 ratings were inflated just as badly by

1) players that Rivals (Otis) rated 3 stars who didn't deserve it at all.
2) players who were academic noshots, but we got credit for them anyway.  We got credit for signing them twice in some cases (Baker, Harrison, Fairchild).

Here are some players rated 3 stars who were complete busts or academic washouts:

Lashlee, Peterson, Banks, Payne, Walker, Leach,  Gilbow, Palmoore, D.Moore, Gray, Giles, Fellows, Hordge, Young, Wrighter.

We also got 2-star ratings on some washouts, when usually those types get 1 or 0 stars.  We even got a 2-star rating on a freaking deep snapper!  Ridiculous.

Rivals doesn't disclose their magic team rating formula, but the more stars the better.  We got 2-star credit for Cousart, Barry, I.Hall.

Marcus Whitmore...4-star bust.  Vickiel Vaughn...you tell me if he's really a 4-star.  Baker...4-star?  Ced Washington...4-star?  Tony Ugoh...4-star?  Robert Johnson...4-star?  Farod Jackson...4-star?

We had gobs of washouts and a large number of overrated players.  That 2002 class was barely top 50 in reality, and the 2003 crop was maybe top 75.

[hogblade]

I claimed that I'm sure every SEC school has 4 star busts, Biggus said no, so I looked it up.

4 Star Busts from Auburn's 2002 recruting class
Justin Bruce-Never reported
Doug Morris- Kicked off the team
Brandon Williams- red-shirted then transferred to small school

[hogblade]

I agree that our rating was probably inflated, but I don't think that only Arkansas is inflated is my point, and to say that is way too conspiracy oriented. If they inflate some Arkansas recruits they do that to everyone else. If I had access to Max Emfinger or pick a recruit guru, I would do the same research, but unless someboyd else wants to do it, this is all I have to go by.

[Biggus Piggus]

I claimed that I'm sure every SEC school has 4 star busts, Biggus said no, so I looked it up.

Come on, don't be a dick.  I did not say that at all.  We had gobs of fallout from the 2002-03 classes.  Many of us on this board knew at the time that both classes were padded with academic noshots after the coaches missed on most of their prime targets.  They were weak classes advertised as good, but it was easily visible that they were bad.  Nutt even half apologized for the 2003 group on signing day!  Said we'd do much better next year.

[hogblade]

Biggus
I will say it again, I agree with you, but I don't think Arkansas is the only school of all the ones I mentioned that has a problem with inflating player's stature.  It's not just the recruits is my point. I think the players can compete with proper coaching and playcalling.

[Biggus Piggus]

I agree that our rating was probably inflated, but I don't think that only Arkansas is inflated is my point, and to say that is way too conspiracy oriented. If they inflate some Arkansas recruits they do that to everyone else. If I had access to Max Emfinger or pick a recruit guru, I would do the same research, but unless someboyd else wants to do it, this is all I have to go by.

You don't know what was going on back then.  Otis had been going through a battle with some of the folks who controlled ratings at some of the various recruiting sites.  Tradition was most of the recruiting gooroos were boosters of various programs.  Anybody Texas was recruiting got rated highly, same for Alabama and a number of others.  Most of 'em didn't know anything about Arkansas players.  The Hogs automatically were low-ended on the team ratings because of that.

Rivals changed hands after the Internet bubble, a lot of things moved around, HI went through various incarnations, and Otis split from Clay.  Anyway, for a time back then Otis started getting increasing sway over the ratings of players Arkansas was recruiting.  A large number of players got their ratings bumped up a star or two, and what happened on one site influenced the others.  For those 2002-03 classes, we got way too much credit for some players who were obvious busts or who were known to be academically ineligible before they were signed.  They were signed to make our classes look better, period.  Then Otis trotted out there and tried to make us look good.

That 2002-03 star inflation wouldn't have happened in the past.  Wouldn't happen now.  Rivals and Scout standardized how they rate players now.  A lot less overt manipulation going on.

[JoeHawg]

I agree that there are problems in ranking recruits but there is no way that they are correct in todays ranking either. Mustain committed to AR and Dropped??
this looks like apples to apples to me

oh yeah  FIRE NUTT

[hogblade]

I was around, but I just didn't buy it. I don't completly buy it now.  They didn't know about Arkansas players but they did know about Utah players, Iowa players, etc.. other small states. I do believe Otis inflated many players, but I don't believe it was as bad as you say. What recruiting service do you recommend I look at in comparison Max Emfinger, BLue Ribbon??  just tell me..

[Biggus Piggus]

It was bad for those two years.  Since then Rivals and Scout have been more objective, not that ratings are that accurate period, just not so much of an effort to patch up Arkansas's standing.

If you look at star ratings, almost all classes are overrated.  The best schools get a lot of 4- and 5-star players.  Many of those do not turn out to be worthy of the ranking, but many do, and some lower-rated players turn into big stars too.  Good programs find the players; heck, the players are drawn to them.  What you can't afford it to have back-to-back years that produced virtually no high-impact players, which is true about 2002-03, while also having a tremendous level of attrition. 

In 2002, we signed 26 hoping to keep 24.  Just 21 made it to campus.  Only 11 are making a significant impact this season.  You'd like that number to be at least 15.

In 2003, we signed 24.  Just 17 made it to campus.  Only nine are making a significant impact this season.  At best 12 from '03 will end up as players, period.

These aren't like 1998 (only four keepers, awful class) or 2000 (eight keepers).  Not as good as 1999 (15) or 2001 (15) either.  The '99 and '01 classes didn't just do adequate quantity, they brought in 14 high-impact players between them.  I can't find one from 2002-03, not one, not yet anyways.  That's what hurt as much as anything.  No star power.

[Hawgrageous]

It is true...you can't shine a turd. This coaching staff has proven that they can't coach or recruit. Quite a 1, 2 combination!

[Biggus Piggus]

If we got five studs a year, not the seven a year we got in '99 and '01 just five, everything would be fine, and nobody would be giving mealy mouthed excuses.

Fifteen real players a year, five high-impact players...not

1998: 4 and 0
1999: 15 and 7
2000: 8 and 0
2001: 15 and 7
2002: 11 and 0
2003: 9 and 0
2004: hope it ends up in the upper teens, but maybe only 3 studs
2005: also hope for upper teens, with quite a few stud-potential players, but it's way early

[jabohog]

How did they manage two out of those years? Was it homegrown boys or just luck? Guys like Caleb Miller and Bua were diamonds in the rough that turned out to be good players, don't you think?

[Kevin]

the point i will make is this. hdn has sold us on the fact we were getting diamonds in the rough and that the studs were studs. now that the diamonds are truly coal and the studs were over inflated, the spin doctors insist it was the investigation. 

also, go back and look how many great players he got to count twice because of academics.

the house of cards which is our program is about to fall all around us.

[JoeHawg]

that why our recruiting classes must have looked so good even though they were not??

Give me a blanking break. Every team has homers writing about the games and about the recruiting.

We need a change in leadership at AD, Head Coach, Asst Coach and Strength Coach.

Let's do it all at season end and put this to bed.

[idochog]

A recruiting class ranked 22-29 nationally, places you in the bottom half of the SEC. We consistently finish in the bottom half. You MUST recruit in comparison of those you play.

When you recruit like this, you better have some darn good coaching and player development and we are probably in the bottom 3 in that department.

[hogblade]

idochog
I agree. we can't develop players. Vickiel Vaughn and Tony Ugoh were both sought after 4 star recruits, just because they haven't lived up to their hype, doesn't mean they weren't any good or overhyped.
It could mean they had bad coaches!