Recruiting Rankings mean nothing

[musiccityhog]

I heard ESPN Recruiting "Expert" Todd McShay say it himself. He said it on a local sports talk show here in Nashville, TN. He said that team recruiting rankings were ridiculous because they are based on the average "star" rating each commit has. He said Notre Dame may have the #1 recruiting class based on this system, but when it comes to actual "needs" they're not doing near as good as that ranking.

[Music City Hog]

I heard ESPN Recruiting "Expert" Todd McShay say it himself. He said it on a local sports talk show here in Nashville, TN. He said that team recruiting rankings were ridiculous because they are based on the average "star" rating each commit has. He said Notre Dame may have the #1 recruiting class based on this system, but when it comes to actual "needs" they're not doing near as good as that ranking.

Hey, I didnt know there was another Music City Hog.    I would have chosen another name had I known you already claimed it.  My bad!

[HamShank]

Sounds like the sh*t Nutt was shoveling around here for about a decade.  Believe what you want, but (despite a handful of examples) there's a magical coincidence between the teams with the best recruiting rankings and the best teams in the nation three or four years later.

[musiccityhog]

Sounds like the sh*t Nutt was shoveling around here for about a decade.  Believe what you want, but (despite a handful of examples) there's a magical coincidence between the teams with the best recruiting rankings and the best teams in the nation three or four years later.

It hasn't worked out too well for Notre Dame has it?

[HamShank]

It hasn't worked out too well for Notre Dame has it?

Notre Dame is one of those "handful of examples" I mention.  Look at every other team currently in the top ten and we'll talk in a couple of years.  Or look at them from a few years back to now.

[Music City Hog]

We may share a name but we dont share this opinion.  Recruiting rankings very much mean something.  Of course there will be occasionally an anomoly, but over the long haul the higher ranked teams consistentally will be the elite teams.

[Tammany Tom]

I heard ESPN Recruiting "Expert" Todd McShay say it himself. He said it on a local sports talk show here in Nashville, TN. He said that team recruiting rankings were ridiculous because they are based on the average "star" rating each commit has. He said Notre Dame may have the #1 recruiting class based on this system, but when it comes to actual "needs" they're not doing near as good as that ranking.

Believe what you want to believe.

Here is the Top 15 Teams in recruiting from 2003 to 2007 based on Avg. Star Per Recruit.

The last 5 BCS National Champions are in bold. As you can clearly see, great recruiting classes may not guarantee success for some schools, but there are NO schools winning National Championships without consistently great recruiting classes.

College - Avg. Star per Recruit - Avg wins per season

1.USC- 3.88- 11.8
2.Florida- 3.69- 9.2
3.Texas- 3.67- 10.8
4.LSU- 3.65- 11.2 (2 Championships)
5.Florida State- 3.58- 8.2
6.Michigan- 3.57- 9.2
7.Oklahoma- 3.57- 10.8
8.Georgia- 3.53- 10.2
9.Ohio State- 3.48- 10.4
10.Miami-FL- 3.46- 8.2
11.Tennessee- 3.39- 8.8
12.Notre Dame- 3.32- 6.6
13.Auburn- 3.23- 10
14.Penn State- 3.22- 7.2
15.Alabama- 3.15- 6.6

[jim hog]

You have to be recruiting with the consistently good teams or you're up the creek. Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program. Pull em in hogs.

[Razorvet]

Well I geuss if you recruited 25 5* QBs then your recruit ranking would be through the roof but you would certainly have holes to fill. I think this was the point he was trying to make. I dont think he was saying you should ignore all the work and scouting done on athletes and just get any ole lineman. That just wouldnt work. You have to have a certain amount of special players to compete on a regular basis with teams in the SEC. Every now and the you will get you Appy State disasters but will not compete for championships on a regular basis. I also think if you have the skill players to run a specific coaching style then the talent at supporting roles has a little less of an impact and you can compete at the highest level.( See Kansas and Missouri)

[Music City Hog]

Well I geuss if you recruited 25 5* QBs then your recruit ranking would be through the roof but you would certainly have holes to fill. I think this was the point he was trying to make. I dont think he was saying you should ignore all the work and scouting done on athletes and just get any ole lineman. That just wouldnt work. You have to have a certain amount of special players to compete on a regular basis with teams in the SEC. Every now and the you will get you Appy State disasters but will not compete for championships on a regular basis. I also think if you have the skill players to run a specific coaching style then the talent at supporting roles has a little less of an impact and you can compete at the highest level.( See Kansas and Missouri)

Maybe for 1 year (see Kansas and Missouri) but not with any consistancy. 

[tophawg19]

6 sec teams in the top 15 . if they played in a conference like usc  how often would they go undefeated. break it down by conference and you see why life in the sec is so tough . no other conference has more than 3

[hawgwash]

Believe what you want to believe.

Here is the Top 15 Teams in recruiting from 2003 to 2007 based on Avg. Star Per Recruit.

The last 5 BCS National Champions are in bold. As you can clearly see, great recruiting classes may not guarantee success for some schools, but there are NO schools winning National Championships without consistently great recruiting classes.

College - Avg. Star per Recruit - Avg wins per season

1.USC- 3.88- 11.8
2.Florida- 3.69- 9.2
3.Texas- 3.67- 10.8
4.LSU- 3.65- 11.2 (2 Championships)
5.Florida State- 3.58- 8.2
6.Michigan- 3.57- 9.2
7.Oklahoma- 3.57- 10.8
8.Georgia- 3.53- 10.2
9.Ohio State- 3.48- 10.4
10.Miami-FL- 3.46- 8.2
11.Tennessee- 3.39- 8.8
12.Notre Dame- 3.32- 6.6
13.Auburn- 3.23- 10
14.Penn State- 3.22- 7.2
15.Alabama- 3.15- 6.6

Thanks for the great research TT.  +1

[h0gfan6]

Just saying....I'd rather have 5 stars coming in than 2 stars.  They didn't get that 5 star ranking for nothing.

[Bacon The Saddle Again]

1.USC- 3.88- 11.8
2.Florida- 3.69- 9.2
3.Texas- 3.67- 10.8
4.LSU- 3.65- 11.2 (2 Championships)
5.Florida State- 3.58- 8.2
6.Michigan- 3.57- 9.2
7.Oklahoma- 3.57- 10.8
8.Georgia- 3.53- 10.2
9.Ohio State- 3.48- 10.4
10.Miami-FL- 3.46- 8.2
11.Tennessee- 3.39- 8.8
12.Notre Dame- 3.32- 6.6
13.Auburn- 3.23- 10
14.Penn State- 3.22- 7.2
15.Alabama- 3.15- 6.6

That part of the list doesn't look very impressive.  West Virginia isn't on that list.  I think recruiting is obviously important, but it isn't the be-all, end-all.  I think reruiting is 65% of winning and coaching the talent is 35%.  But either way, you can't win big without either component.  But one component done extremely well can help cover a bit of the other.

[VenturaHog]

Recruiting is the end all be all, winning begins and ends with the athletes you can put on the field. Lineman can be molded into greatness, Skill players are born great.

Game planning and coaching are very important of course, but a coach can't turn sh** into champaign.

[Wes Craven]

1.USC- 3.88- 11.8
2.Florida- 3.69- 9.2
3.Texas- 3.67- 10.8
4.LSU- 3.65- 11.2 (2 Championships)
5.Florida State- 3.58- 8.2
6.Michigan- 3.57- 9.2
7.Oklahoma- 3.57- 10.8
8.Georgia- 3.53- 10.2
9.Ohio State- 3.48- 10.4
10.Miami-FL- 3.46- 8.2
11.Tennessee- 3.39- 8.8
12.Notre Dame- 3.32- 6.6
13.Auburn- 3.23- 10
14.Penn State- 3.22- 7.2
15.Alabama- 3.15- 6.6

That part of the list doesn't look very impressive.  West Virginia isn't on that list.  I think recruiting is obviously important, but it isn't the be-all, end-all.  I think reruiting is 65% of winning and coaching the talent is 35%.  But either way, you can't win big without either component.  But one component done extremely well can help cover a bit of the other.

You can more than likely go back another 5 years and you will find the same 15 schools in a very similar order. I say that to say this.

Of the teams you deemed not impressive here are some numbers.

In 2003 Auburn went 13-0. Since then only USC and Texas have won more games that the Tigers. I am not sure what is unimpressive about 10 wins a year.

Notre Dame has been two 2 BCS Bowl games.

Tennessee, Florida State and Miami have won BCS National Titles since its inception.

Every team on that list has been in a BCS Bowl game with the exception of Alabama.

Alabama is Alabama. They will always get recruits no matter how poor they play. See North Carolina in the Matt Daughtery years in hoops. Somehow they still sell that plaid hat and pants to some kids.

Recruiting matters and so do the ratings. Kids aren't just rated on some imaginery numbers. Many are scouted and graded from the time they strap on a helmet in 10th grade. Sure there will be some misses, ie. Gary Brashears, however, for the most part they will be fairly accurate.

Would you be able to rate people coming out of high school going into the business world with 100% acuracy? I am sure there would be some world beater kid who ends up working at 7-11 and some kid who never said a word in high school who ends up running a Fortune 500 company. It happens.

[Bacon The Saddle Again]

You can more than likely go back another 5 years and you will find the same 15 schools in a very similar order. I say that to say this.

Of the teams you deemed not impressive here are some numbers.

In 2003 Auburn went 13-0. Since then only USC and Texas have won more games that the Tigers. I am not sure what is unimpressive about 10 wins a year.

Notre Dame has been two 2 BCS Bowl games.

Tennessee, Florida State and Miami have won BCS National Titles since its inception.

Every team on that list has been in a BCS Bowl game with the exception of Alabama.

Alabama is Alabama. They will always get recruits no matter how poor they play. See North Carolina in the Matt Daughtery years in hoops. Somehow they still sell that plaid hat and pants to some kids.

Recruiting matters and so do the ratings. Kids aren't just rated on some imaginery numbers. Many are scouted and graded from the time they strap on a helmet in 10th grade. Sure there will be some misses, ie. Gary Brashears, however, for the most part they will be fairly accurate.

Would you be able to rate people coming out of high school going into the business world with 100% acuracy? I am sure there would be some world beater kid who ends up working at 7-11 and some kid who never said a word in high school who ends up running a Fortune 500 company. It happens.

You can't count Auburn's title in 2003 if you don't start counting the recruits in 2003.  Florida State hasn't won a championship since 2003.  Bama has been mediocre to bad since 2003.  Tennessee has been underachieving since 2003.  Notre Dame has had two good years out of five.  Penn State has been nothing more than an afterthought.  Miami has been horrendous.

I'm not stating that recruiting isn't important.  It's vitally important.  It's 65% of winning like I said earlier.  But good coaching is also extremely important.  Since 2003, has Florida State been a top 5 program?  I wouldn't even consider FSU a top 10 or maybe a top 15 program since 2003.  Not sure I would put Tennessee in that group either.  I know I wouldn't put Penn State in that group.  Nor would I put Miami or Alabama.  And you just said Alabama is going to get great recruits no matter how poorly they play...according to your argument, if they get great recruits, their coaching shouldnt matter. 

Teams that would one might assume would be on that list but aren't:  West Virginia, Wicsonson, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Louisville.  So....what is it about these teams that allow them to consistently be in the rankings (a lot of times near the top) without being on this list?  My best guess is- coaching.

[stchane]

You can't count Auburn's title in 2003 if you don't start counting the recruits in 2003.  Florida State hasn't won a championship since 2003.  Bama has been mediocre to bad since 2003.  Tennessee has been underachieving since 2003.  Notre Dame has had two good years out of five.  Penn State has been nothing more than an afterthought.  Miami has been horrendous.

I'm not stating that recruiting isn't important.  It's vitally important.  It's 65% of winning like I said earlier.  But good coaching is also extremely important.  Since 2003, has Florida State been a top 5 program?  I wouldn't even consider FSU a top 10 or maybe a top 15 program since 2003.  Not sure I would put Tennessee in that group either.  I know I wouldn't put Penn State in that group.  Nor would I put Miami or Alabama.  And you just said Alabama is going to get great recruits no matter how poorly they play...according to your argument, if they get great recruits, their coaching shouldnt matter. 

Teams that would one might assume would be on that list but aren't:  West Virginia, Wicsonson, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Louisville.  So....what is it about these teams that allow them to consistently be in the rankings (a lot of times near the top) without being on this list?  My best guess is- coaching.

You guys are splitting hairs.  Good coaches are usually the best recruiters.  Thats the rule, and there are several exceptions as listed above.  I would be willing to bet those teams are top 20 or 25 however.  I think others would agree that those teams play in "lesser" conferences to ours as well.  Therefore, they dont have to participate in an arms race every year like the SEC does. 

That original list left off Ohio State as a BCS NC winner too.  I don't know why there is so much bickering on the subject.  We just got rid of a poor recruiter, average coach, and world class used car salesman.  The great coaches know the value of having great recruits.  It makes their job much easier, thus they work harder at it.  In the long run, they are more successful.  Success breeds success, and after a while, they may not have to work as hard as they once did when their program is built up (i.e. USC, Ohio State, Texas).  This is why the coach matters so much. 

What has me drooling is that I think BP is going to start us on this cycle, and after it gets started, the sky is the limit. 

[Tammany Tom]

1.USC- 3.88- 11.8
2.Florida- 3.69- 9.2
3.Texas- 3.67- 10.8
4.LSU- 3.65- 11.2 (2 Championships)
5.Florida State- 3.58- 8.2
6.Michigan- 3.57- 9.2
7.Oklahoma- 3.57- 10.8
8.Georgia- 3.53- 10.2
9.Ohio State- 3.48- 10.4
10.Miami-FL- 3.46- 8.2
11.Tennessee- 3.39- 8.8
12.Notre Dame- 3.32- 6.6
13.Auburn- 3.23- 10
14.Penn State- 3.22- 7.2
15.Alabama- 3.15- 6.6

That part of the list doesn't look very impressive.  West Virginia isn't on that list.  I think recruiting is obviously important, but it isn't the be-all, end-all.  I think reruiting is 65% of winning and coaching the talent is 35%.  But either way, you can't win big without either component.  But one component done extremely well can help cover a bit of the other.

I'm going to try to help stchane out a little here.

The list only includes 2003 to 2007. Rivals only publishes back to 2002. I only went back 5 years because that was a nice round number. However, as stchane said if you go back another 5 years the same schools would in all likelyhood still be on the list with some minor changes. Go back to the inception of the BCS in 1998: Every single National Champion is on the above list. 1998: Tenn; 1999:Florida State; 2000: OU; 2001:Miami; 2002: Ohio St.; 2003: LSU; 2004, USC; 2005: Texas; 2006: Florida; 2007: LSU.

The point I am making is that while some schools may not get everything they should out of the talent they recruit, there are NO schools, ZERO, that are winning National Championships without consistently great recruiting classes.

You mention West Virginia as a school that is not on the list and a team that has been successful. Yes, WV, has been successful, but over a 12 game regular season, how many top tier teams is WV playing compared to Tenn.  and other SEC programs? Could WV be as successful as they currently are if they were playing in the SEC and facing top tier programs week in and week out? My opinion is no.

You also point out other programs as having success like Wisconsin, Oregon, V-Tech, and Louisville. Again, none of these teams are considered the elite of college football. Wisconsin rarely plays in BCS bowls, Louisville has only played in 1, and I don't think Oregon has ever played in one. V-Tech usually gets beat whenever they step out of the friendly confines of the ACC or Big East.

Yes, programs can have a year or two of seeing some high level of success like Kansas and Missouri did this year, but they can't and don't compete year in and year out at a high, elite level.

Bama has recruited high level recruits, but were on probation for several years during this period, therefore they couldn't and didn't get the number of recruits needed each year to field a highly competitive team. Now that they can sign their full allotment look for things to change at Bama. You say Tenn has underacheived since 2003, but they still have been quite successful. Since 2003, Tenn. has gone 10-3, 10-3, 5-6, 9-4, and 10-4 winning two SEC East titles during that period against elite competition. I can guarantee programs like Oregon, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Louisville, and Virginia Tech would have less to show during that time if they had Tennessee's schedule those years.

The main point here is that you can have a really nice successful year every now and then if you are not one of the top recruiting programs, but you aren't going to be a consistent elite program capable of winning a national championship if you are not getting high ranking recruiting classes year in and year out.

[Wild Bill Hog]

I believe if you look at players (especially at the skill positions) in the NFL you will find many more 5* and 4* recruits than 2* and 3*.

[Bacon The Saddle Again]

I'm going to try to help stchane out a little here.

The list only includes 2003 to 2007. Rivals only publishes back to 2002. I only went back 5 years because that was a nice round number. However, as stchane said if you go back another 5 years the same schools would in all likelyhood still be on the list with some minor changes. Go back to the inception of the BCS in 1998: Every single National Champion is on the above list. 1998: Tenn; 1999:Florida State; 2000: OU; 2001:Miami; 2002: Ohio St.; 2003: LSU; 2004, USC; 2005: Texas; 2006: Florida; 2007: LSU.

The point I am making is that while some schools may not get everything they should out of the talent they recruit, there are NO schools, ZERO, that are winning National Championships without consistently great recruiting classes.

You mention West Virginia as a school that is not on the list and a team that has been successful. Yes, WV, has been successful, but over a 12 game regular season, how many top tier teams is WV playing compared to Tenn.  and other SEC programs? Could WV be as successful as they currently are if they were playing in the SEC and facing top tier programs week in and week out? My opinion is no.

You also point out other programs as having success like Wisconsin, Oregon, V-Tech, and Louisville. Again, none of these teams are considered the elite of college football. Wisconsin rarely plays in BCS bowls, Louisville has only played in 1, and I don't think Oregon has ever played in one. V-Tech usually gets beat whenever they step out of the friendly confines of the ACC or Big East.

Yes, programs can have a year or two of seeing some high level of success like Kansas and Missouri did this year, but they can't and don't compete year in and year out at a high, elite level.

Bama has recruited high level recruits, but were on probation for several years during this period, therefore they couldn't and didn't get the number of recruits needed each year to field a highly competitive team. Now that they can sign their full allotment look for things to change at Bama. You say Tenn has underacheived since 2003, but they still have been quite successful. Since 2003, Tenn. has gone 10-3, 10-3, 5-6, 9-4, and 10-4 winning two SEC East titles during that period against elite competition. I can guarantee programs like Oregon, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Louisville, and Virginia Tech would have less to show during that time if they had Tennessee's schedule those years.

The main point here is that you can have a really nice successful year every now and then if you are not one of the top recruiting programs, but you aren't going to be a consistent elite program capable of winning a national championship if you are not getting high ranking recruiting classes year in and year out.

First of all, you're making assumptions about my thinking that are not there.  I have not undervalued th role of recruiting.  It's more than 50% of winning big.

And yes, V-Tech, Oregon, Wisconson, Louisville, West Virginia, etc may not be considered the "elite" of college football- but neither would FSU, Penn State, Notre Dame, UT, etc, etc over the past five years.

Here's a question I would ask.  The top 3 teams on that list have won th bulk of the recent BCS titles.  This is a chicken and the egg situation.  Which came first?  The great recruiting classes or the championships?  Perhaps they have great recruiting classes BECAUSE they have won championships?

[Lake City Hog]

 Thought I would weigh in on this with my 2 cents worth. Sure recruiting the best talented players is very important and does contribute to winning. My problem with the * system is pretty simple. If Mike Brown is a running back from Arkansas or South Dakota will he get the same ranking as he would if he were from Florida or Texas? Would he get the same ranking if he committed to USC or Notre Dame as he would if he committed to Baylor or yes, even Arkansas? We all know the big name schools automatically have the rankings of the players that they are recruiting punched up by the recruiting services. Players from football states are more highly thought of than some of the other states.
To me, if a coach is recruiting players that A. fit his system , B. fill his team's needs and C. are of the highest quality that he can get , then his team has had a successful recruiting year. Recruiting players that don't fill your holes and will probably never make it to campus is only a dog and pony show for the fans.
Don't get me wrong, I want the best athletes out there, as long as they fit the needs and desires of Coach Petrino.

James

[Tammany Tom]

Here's a question I would ask.  The top 3 teams on that list have won th bulk of the recent BCS titles.  This is a chicken and the egg situation.  Which came first?  The great recruiting classes or the championships?  Perhaps they have great recruiting classes BECAUSE they have won championships?

The answer is always this: The great recruiting classes come before the championships.

I will speak of LSU first since that is the one program I know inside out. LSU was losing the top rated Louisiana recruits to out of state programs throughout the early to mid 90's. DiNardo slowed down the bleeding quite a bit when he came aboard, but did not completely lock down the state. In 2000, when LSU completely overhauled their entire administration and athletic department, LSU started to lock down all the top talent in the state under Saban. LSU had the best recruiting class in the history of the program in 2001 when LSU signed 8 National Top 100 prospects. The National Title came in 2003. LSU, since 2001, has locked down virtually every Lousiana recruit they have targeted with the exception of Joe McKnight and have done an outstanding job getting elite players from out of state. With Top Five classes one after another, LSU wins their second BCS National Championship in 5 years. 

Look at USC. Their first year under Pete Carroll (2001) they only went 6-6. Pete started putting his stamp on the USC program the minute he stepped foot in LA with his first recruiting class in 2001. USC's recruiting class in 2002 had an avg. star rating of 3.5. USC had another great recruiting class in 2003 and USC won the AP Title in 2003 and the BCS Title in 2004.

Miami and Florida State basically owned college football from the mid 80's till 2001. Schnellenberger built Miami into a powerhouse by recruiting local south florida talent and then the titles starting coming. Bowden started recruiting elite level talent in the early 80's and built FSU into one of the best programs ever for a 15 year run from 1985 to 2000.

Florida, under Galen Hall, started recruiting top players in the mid to late 80's and when Spurrier came in 1988, the program lifted off. Spurrier started getting lazy in recruiting in the late 90's and then he left for the Redskins. Zook was left with a somewhat empty cabinet. Zook was a great recruiter and started building up the roster, but couldn't win enough with the depleted level of talent that was left behind by Spurrier and he was shown the door. Urban Meyer walked in and had a full, talented roster and along with good coaching Florida won a title in 2006.

OU's talent dropped dramatically in the early 90's. John Blake was hired in December of 1995 and he was a great recruiter. OU struggled under Blake with a poor roster of players while Blake recruited great class after great class. Stoops takes over the program at the end of 1998 and goes 7-5 in his first year and wins the National Title in his second.

The primary reason why Mack Brown was hired at Texas was because he was a great recruiter at North Carolina. Texas struggled before Mack was hired in the 90's. After Brown was hired, Texas, along with OU, locked down virtually all the Top Texas talent that was going out of state prior to his hiring. Texas wins a National Title with Vince Young and a extremely loaded roster of elite players in 2005.

[VenturaHog]

Excellent post Tammany Tom +1.

[Petrinos Pigs]

I just wish we were in the top 5 in recruiting every year. I'd take my chances on our record. If you're signing that kind of talent and not winning then you've got a coaching problem.