MoneyBall Interesting

[hawginbigd1]

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article128319199.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update

Good article about the reality and complexity of recruiting.

[Tusks]

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article128319199.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update

Good article about the reality and complexity of recruiting.

Jimmy Johnson was the best talent evaluater for college or pros I've ever seen.  IMO that's what is missing from the Hogs.  A guy that can look at a kid and see the vision of where he plays in college.  They don't grow on trees and they're hard to find, but I would love to see the UA invest in one.

[justmakeit2thebcs]

Jimmy Johnson was the best talent evaluater for college or pros I've ever seen.  IMO that's what is missing from the Hogs.  A guy that can look at a kid and see the vision of where he plays in college.  They don't grow on trees and they're hard to find, but I would love to see the UA invest in one.

CBB has one of the best track records around of taking the 2-3 star guy and turning him in to a high NFL draft pick.

[NotSoFastMyFriend]

A lot of us have been saying this for years but hopefully since it's form a non-Hog biased source it will be given some real thought on here:

"The previous methods of recruiting relied heavily on the star-ranking system recorded by Rivals and other websites that have become wildly lucrative, despite their consistent inaccuracies.

The guys at these websites have no clue what they are doing when they put a five-star label on a 17-year-old kid. They normally rely on height and weight, a rough estimate of speed and some bloated statistics. More often than not the rankings come down to what schools are recruiting the player.

If Alabama is recruiting a kid, he's a good bet to be a four- or a five-star. Same for the University of Texas.

If it's TCU or Texas Tech, the same player is more apt to be a three- or maybe a four-star."

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article128319199.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update#storylink=cpy

[hawginbigd1]

Another along the same lines as the original article, stars and ranking matter, but to much less degree than "star gazers" want to believe. The reason is, the inaccuracies of some of the higher rated players, but more frequently the inaccuracies involving lower rated players.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/football/article128989124.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update

[hawginbigd1]

And here is one Hog related. Pay particular attention to A&M and Georgia

http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/126579/regrading-the-2013-sec-recruiting-classes

[Bubba's Bruisers]

A lot of us have been saying this for years but hopefully since it's form a non-Hog biased source it will be given some real thought on here:

"The previous methods of recruiting relied heavily on the star-ranking system recorded by Rivals and other websites that have become wildly lucrative, despite their consistent inaccuracies.

The guys at these websites have no clue what they are doing when they put a five-star label on a 17-year-old kid. They normally rely on height and weight, a rough estimate of speed and some bloated statistics. More often than not the rankings come down to what schools are recruiting the player.

If Alabama is recruiting a kid, he’s a good bet to be a four- or a five-star. Same for the University of Texas.

If it’s TCU or Texas Tech, the same player is more apt to be a three- or maybe a four-star."

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article128319199.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update#storylink=cpy

The irony of this is that that it criticizes the idea that these services ultimately place the most value in who offers a kid.  Well, that's probably the most credible thing they could do.

CBB has one of the best track records around of taking the 2-3 star guy and turning him in to a high NFL draft pick.

Probably so, but finding the right 2-3 star guys in enough numbers with that kind of potential is the problem.  When your roster is overwhelmingly made up of 3-stars, then yes, a handful are going to be really, really good and make an NFL roster.  The problem is winning on a high level with any consistency with said roster makeup.  We've never accomplished that.

[Redhogs]

And here is one Hog related. Pay particular attention to A&M and Georgia

http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/126579/regrading-the-2013-sec-recruiting-classes

That alone should get Sumlin fired....that's inexcusable. They must lie allot.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Another along the same lines as the original article, stars and ranking matter, but to much less degree than "star gazers" want to believe. The reason is, the inaccuracies of some of the higher rated players, but more frequently the inaccuracies involving lower rated players.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/football/article128989124.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update

The rankings are often reasonably accurate at the extremes...the top say 15 and the teams outside of say the top 40.  It's those tweeners that we're talking about.. 16 to 39.  Lot's of wiggle room in there.  But very few who are consistently finishing in these ranges move into 1st tier status on the field.  And our situation is magnified because we reside in the SECW. 

It's about goals.  If the goal is to say make the 4-team playoff, then we don't recruit well enough to do that IMO.  And that's not BB's fault.  There are too many factors fighting against the program.  If, however, the goal is to be a consistently completive, respected program...say an 8-4 type program...then we can be that IMO.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

That alone should get Sumlin fired....that's inexcusable. They must lie allot.

We were the only team to improve our grade after the reranking, yet look at the results on the field.  And it's not coincidence that the guys mentioned in the article...Collins, Henry and Kirkland...were 4 star guys with tons of big boy offers.  We just haven't had enough of that type talent on the roster...ever.  Skipper had big time offers too.  Only Morgan really didn't.  Don't recall Spaight, so I assume not many as well.  The point is there is usually a correlation between stars, offers, and results on the field.

It's also no coincidence that the Razorback names that seem to get the most discussion over the last decade are guys that were highly sought after in HS.  Guys with offers and stars.  It's not an exact science, of course, as there are always exceptions to the rule, but the rule usually rules.  HV is the master at arguing the exceptions, though.

[hawginbigd1]

We were the only team to improve our grade after the reranking, yet look at the results on the field.  And it's not coincidence that the guys mentioned in the article...Collins, Henry and Kirkland...were 4 star guys with tons of big boy offers.  We just haven't had enough of that type talent on the roster...ever.  Skipper had big time offers too.  Only Morgan really didn't.  Don't recall Spaight, so I assume not many as well.  The point is there is usually a correlation between stars, offers, and results on the field.

It's also no coincidence that the Razorback names that seem to get the most discussion over the last decade are guys that were highly sought after in HS.  Guys with offers and stars.  It's not an exact science, of course, as there are always exceptions to the rule, but the rule usually rules.  HV is the master at arguing the exceptions, though.

I will give you that, but the correlation is more closely related to the coaches and the programs not the star rankings IMO. Baylor, TCU, Wisconsin, Oregon, these are all teams knocking on the final 4 door or the title game that are not the high rated recruiting teams. These are not exceptions these are the schools that are not the Blue Bloods of college football, with the best coaches in college football.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I will give you that, but the correlation is more closely related to the coaches and the programs not the star rankings IMO. Baylor, TCU, Wisconsin, Oregon, these are all teams knocking on the final 4 door or the title game that are not the high rated recruiting teams. These are not exceptions these are the schools that are not the Blue Bloods of college football, with the best coaches in college football.

Yes, even we can knock on that door very occasionally, but that's a far cry from actually getting through that door.  And those teams don't play our schedule. 

We don't recruit well enough to make it.