What some are missing regarding recruiting rankings.

[Wildhog]

Actually, Knoxville is not considered a fertile recruiting ground.  Most of the talent that comes out of Tennessee comes from the western side (Memphis) or the central part (Nashville).  Memphis feels no allegiance to UT; just as many of the kids here go to Ole Miss, MSU, UM and others as go to UT.  Nashville has traditionally been good to the Vols, but that has changed a little since Franklin started doing well at Vandy. 

Tennessee is very similar to Arkansas in that to be successful, UT has to recruit very well from surrounding states.  It just irks me that after an all-time low era, they hire their 3rd or 4th choice as coach after being turned down by the big names, and the guy comes in and instantly starts hitting home runs in recruiting.  Those recruits may never pan out (remember Kiffin's one class at UT) or he may turn out to be a John L. as a game day coach, but right now he's obviously doing something right.

Actually, Knoxville has more elite talent in its vicinity than almost every other SEC town.  Just because they're out of state doesn't mean they aren't close.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

Actually, Knoxville has more elite talent in its vicinity than almost every other SEC town.  Just because they're out of state doesn't mean they aren't close.

Well, that's true.  Atlanta to the south, the Carolinas to the east, southern Ohio not too far to the north.  But hey, we've got Tulsa!

You must've watched Raising Arizona recently.  My favorite line from that whole movie.

[cosmodrum]

Well, that's true.  Atlanta to the south, the Carolinas to the east, southern Ohio not too far to the north.  But hey, we've got Tulsa!

You must've watched Raising Arizona recently.  My favorite line from that whole movie.

REPEAT O-FFENDER

[LRRandy]

Doesn't sound farfetched in the least, because it isn't.

oh I see. Two decades of different coaches all shooting themselves in the foot. That's quite a trend. Or. Some teams are just going to be mediocre.

[The Artist Yo Huckleberry]

Which will NEVER happen.

Why not? "This staff" is invincible, from what I'm reading.

[Wildhog]

Why not? "This staff" is invincible, from what I'm reading.

Now you're not even trying.

[cosmodrum]

Why not? "This staff" is invincible, from what I'm reading.

This staff has a great track record (as individuals) of being excellent recruiters. That's not a Hogville myth. However, they aren't wizards. They cannot magically double the amount of 4 star players in the area, nor can they pull 4-5 5 stars out of their turd cutters. And NO ONE gets every player they want. If so, Pruitt would be in Tuscaloosa next year. Reeve Koehler would be in Columbus, and Denver Kirkland would be in Coral Gables.

[Ty Webb240]

Actually, Knoxville has more elite talent in its vicinity than almost every other SEC town.  Just because they're out of state doesn't mean they aren't close.

Yeah, I don't have a map next to me, but KnoxVegas probably has Nashville, ATL, and Charlotte are within that 250 miles.   That's a LOT of talent, including ATL, which is probably #1 in the country for high school talent. 

Memphis is much further away and definitely not a UT town.  Many in Memphis hate Knoxville.   

But, UT has some talent around them. 

[The Artist Yo Huckleberry]

This staff has a great track record (as individuals) of being excellent recruiters. That's not a Hogville myth. However, they aren't wizards. They cannot magically double the amount of 4 star players in the area, nor can they pull 4-5 5 stars out of their turd cutters. And NO ONE gets every player they want. If so, Pruitt would be in Tuscaloosa next year. Reeve Koehler would be in Columbus, and Denver Kirkland would be in Coral Gables.

Thus far, I've seen Sam Pittman doing a great job.

[The Artist Yo Huckleberry]

Now you're not even trying.

I don't think I've got the burden of proof here.

[RazorReddie]

We've been discussing whether we can win an SEC title with below average SEC recruiting rankings.   It's never been done since 1992 but some think it can because the team was close in 2 years out of 20. That averages to about 1 in every 10 years. 

One other issue, Alabama no longer has Shula or scholarship reductions and the West just added A&M - who's now pulling in top 10 classes now that they moved out from Texas' shadow by moving to the SEC.   

Obviously, the SEC landscape is now tougher compared to 2006 and even 2011, and since we can only sign 25 players, we need as few misses as possible to allow for both elite talent and depth.   How do the percentages of elite players and very solid contributors play out as stars increase?   The NFL is a good gauge and here are the percentages.  So, while some two stars become contributors and some five stars are busts, here is the breakdown according to the NFL in two different years:

Percent of players drafted in first round of the NFL draft in 2009  (the most elite talent)

5 Stars    -    14.2%
4 Stars    -    3.0%
3 Stars    -    0.8%
2 Stars    -    0.1%

http://www.collegefootballscoop.com/nfl-draft-1st-round-recruiting-rankings-breakdown/



NFL players drafted in 2013 rating out of high school (entire NFL draft)

5-Star: 19    63%
4-Star: 84    33%
3-Star: 74    5%
Other: 77     1%

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/4/28/4278312/nfl-draft-2013-college-conference-recruiting

Damn It TyWebb!  There you go confusing us with the facts when our minds are made up!  Jeez! 

+1  -   

[The Artist Yo Huckleberry]

Damn It TyWebb!  There you go confusing us with the facts when our minds are made up!  Jeez! 

+1  -   

Too bad we're not in the NFL, I guess.

[Oklahawg]

REPEAT O-FFENDER

Well okay then.

[Biggus Piggus]

oh I see. Two decades of different coaches all shooting themselves in the foot. That's quite a trend. Or. Some teams are just going to be mediocre.

When you cheap out on hiring coaches / assistants, yes.

[Ty Webb240]

Damn It TyWebb!  There you go confusing us with the facts when our minds are made up!  Jeez! 

+1  -   

Some are still having trouble with these statistics.   

When you can only sign about 25 per year, you are exponentially more likely to locate difference makers by signing more 5 and 4 star players. 

[Science Fiction Greg]

I think there are a few things that people miss regarding recruiting.  One is that recruiting is not a short term game.  I'm not even talking about long term relationships with kids.  I'm talking building the brand of the program over time and using that as a tool.  I'm also talking about establishing pipelines and territory.  Those things take time.  People can look at how our current staff is doing now, but that is not the entire story.  Not even close.

As an example of how we might succeed, think about the current program and staff and their recruiting potential.  Maybe the best we could hope for is just inside the top 20.  That's a little better than we are used to, and that's great.  Is it good enough to win an SEC championship and/or national title?  Debatable, but probably not.  But, it is good enough to have an above average year.  String together some above average years, and maybe a great one sprinkled in there, and now we have a much better brand and consistent program.  This can help raise our recruiting potential top inside the top 15.  Rinse, repeat.  BUILD the program.  It's not an instant thing.

There are some other things that people rarely mention, but are important, but I won't go into those now.  The main point I want to make is that #1 - this staff and any staff probably has a recruiting ceiling right now.  It is unlikely that we will do better than some particular spot.  #2 - that doesn't mean anything in regards to this staff/program's abilities to recruit or build a program long term.  Ideally, you would like to see some recruiting progress each year and translate that into good and great seasons to build the program's prestige over time.  #3 - short term recruiting limitations do not indicate that the program can never succeed, but it does indicate it will require time to build.

[Ty Webb240]

I think there are a few things that people miss regarding recruiting.  One is that recruiting is not a short term game.  I'm not even talking about long term relationships with kids.  I'm talking building the brand of the program over time and using that as a tool.  I'm also talking about establishing pipelines and territory.  Those things take time.  People can look at how our current staff is doing now, but that is not the entire story.  Not even close.

As an example of how we might succeed, think about the current program and staff and their recruiting potential.  Maybe the best we could hope for is just inside the top 20.  That's a little better than we are used to, and that's great.  Is it good enough to win an SEC championship and/or national title?  Debatable, but probably not.  But, it is good enough to have an above average year.  String together some above average years, and maybe a great one sprinkled in there, and now we have a much better brand and consistent program.  This can help raise our recruiting potential top inside the top 15.  Rinse, repeat.  BUILD the program.  It's not an instant thing.

There are some other things that people rarely mention, but are important, but I won't go into those now.  The main point I want to make is that #1 - this staff and any staff probably has a recruiting ceiling right now.  It is unlikely that we will do better than some particular spot.  #2 - that doesn't mean anything in regards to this staff/program's abilities to recruit or build a program long term.  Ideally, you would like to see some recruiting progress each year and translate that into good and great seasons to build the program's prestige over time.  #3 - short term recruiting limitations do not indicate that the program can never succeed, but it does indicate it will require time to build.

Great post and I agree with all of this. 

I think we have the resources in place to be a program that recruits in the 10-20 range.   But, it takes money and a lot of effort (and proper branding as you mentioned), with some of these factors missing at times over the past two decades.   With development, little attrition, and recruiting in this range, coaches should be able to put together much better rosters than we had under Nutt and Petrino.  Mix in a few high 4 and 5 stars at key positions and the team will be ready to compete again. 

It would also help if the state of Arkansas keeps producing better players each year. 

[Hoggish1]

We've been discussing whether we can win an SEC title with below average SEC recruiting rankings.   It's never been done since 1992 but some think it can because the team was close in 2 years out of 20. That averages to about 1 in every 10 years. 

One other issue, Alabama no longer has Shula or scholarship reductions and the West just added A&M - who's now pulling in top 10 classes now that they moved out from Texas' shadow by moving to the SEC.   

Obviously, the SEC landscape is now tougher compared to 2006 and even 2011, and since we can only sign 25 players, we need as few misses as possible to allow for both elite talent and depth.   How do the percentages of elite players and very solid contributors play out as stars increase?   The NFL is a good gauge and here are the percentages.  So, while some two stars become contributors and some five stars are busts, here is the breakdown according to the NFL in two different years:

Percent of players drafted in first round of the NFL draft in 2009  (the most elite talent)

5 Stars    -    14.2%
4 Stars    -    3.0%
3 Stars    -    0.8%
2 Stars    -    0.1%

http://www.collegefootballscoop.com/nfl-draft-1st-round-recruiting-rankings-breakdown/



NFL players drafted in 2013 rating out of high school (entire NFL draft)

5-Star: 19    63%
4-Star: 84    33%
3-Star: 74    5%
Other: 77     1%

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/4/28/4278312/nfl-draft-2013-college-conference-recruiting

Dries eyes and slinks away muttering, "widdowowddarkeensaw..."

[Hoggish1]

There's serious problems with the data.

1. Recruitnik methods, 5-4-3-2-1 weightings, completeness of coverage are inconsistent from year to year. Even the past 10 years have seen a lot of change.
2. Each star stratum should relate to a certain level of prospect, but there's not nearly the same effort done to evaluate everybody below 4. That means the 3-star layer is way overloaded, and it makes a lot of the ratings spurious. In many cases, recruitniks hand out 3-stars to avoid taking flak from fans, or to make it look like they know what they're talking about after a big-name school offers a low-rated or unrated kid. The 1-star level isn't used for what it should be - all those guys who don't have a prayer of being eligible. And 2-star is filled with completely unevaluated players, as well as guys like Marcus Harrison, Jonathan Luigs and Jamaal Anderson.
3. OF COURSE the hit rate below 4 star is going to be low. The amount of effort put into evaluating those players varies a great deal. There's no difference between a Desmond Williams (3 star in 2004) and Jamar Love, Joey Crossland, Cord Gray, Elston Forte, Antwain Robinson, Michael Hall, Rod Coleman, Tyrell Graham ... and Felix Jones (3 stars in 2005).
4. Way too many obviously ineligible players have gotten 3-star ratings over the years. Arkansas signed quite a few during Nutt's time, as, approaching signing day, he padded his recruitnik rankings.

I wish somebody would make an effort to clean up the historical 3-star data and estimate what the true hit rate was. Excluding ineligibles and the other instant duds.

Thanks for the logic and the facts.

I'll take the eye of a good coach any day over the rankings of the recruiting agencies staffed by wannabees.

How many internet "sports writers" do we have to be insulted by before we understand that rating services are there to sell subscriptions and notch adds.  All about $...