A subject worthy of much more research

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Go back sixty years and look at our record.  Most years we're in the games.

I almost qualified by saying "while in the SEC", but I assumed that we wouldn't be looking back 5 decades ago, because you know, the landscape back then is not comparable to today.  We haven't been in the game with any regularity since being in the SEC.  Circumstances are very different now.  That doesn't mean we can't overcome them, of course.  We just really haven't yet...with any consistency.

[lefty08]

It's the same with LSU.  We rarely get their best games.   

Dont u think our teams have something to say about that?

[Al Boarland]

Dont u think our teams have something to say about that?

Yeah, something.

[Atlhogfan1]

Biggus has a point.  We have been very competitive with AU.  AU has had a higher ceiling as a program when they have had good teams.  I think their 2010 and 13 teams were as fortunate as they were good.  But the commonality in those teams was in their lines - experienced oline and disruptive dlinemen.  Our program needs consistency.  It is something we haven't had since we joined the SEC.  Our longest tenured coach was unorganized and never seemed to have a plan recruiting with his unbalanced classes by position.  We were never complete teams.  The two coaches who built the most complete teams didn't last very long.  Hopefully at some point, we'll have a coaching staff who will build the program correctly and for the long term.  Get us to the point where we are rotating 3rd, 4th, 5th year players through most of our two deep especially in the lines. Do that and we can win consistently in this conference.  And in certain seasons, we could compete for the championship. 

[Pulled(PP)pork]

You're comparing a Junior to a True Freshman at DE.

Darius Philon is very good tackle, and deserved a 4 star ranking. Had he signed with Alabama, he would have been. If memory serves correctly, he chose Arkansas because he was told on signing day that they didn't have room. So basically he had no other choice because since he had already burned his bridge with Auburn.

no such thing in the Plains


PP

[12247]

I don't really agree that Aubbie doesn't get on average, better talent than we do.  What I do like about our HC is that he loves the lines and usually Freshmen don't start on the lines so we got time to train and produce linemen.  Our staff may be able to produce linemen capable of standing their ground against the SEC.  If so, then we always got a chance in any game.

If you can win the LOS, you can usually win the game.  We won't always win the LOS even if on any given date, we might be better there.  The SEC has great linemen and ours would just be some of them.  With our recruiting limits, having great linemen is the one thing that BB brings to the table that will really pay of in the long run.

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

Recruiting and ranking recruits is a very inexact science.  Can anyone really point to the difference between someone who is rated a 5.9 and a 5.8? Or a 5.9 and 5.7 for that matter?  A 5.8 and a 5.5 or 5.4, I can see. What matters more is recruiting for need and recruiting for depth.  I was never a darksider, but Nutt NEVER seemed to have a recruiting plan.  Petrino did, especially on the offensive side, but the tail end of his classes would be filled with a lot of chances taken.  Bielema, on the other hand, SEEMS to have a plan and a vision of depth. The result is he SEEMS to have improved the overall quality of our classes--both in terms of need and depth, and, indeed, in terms of taking fewer chances. He does one more thing as far as I can tell.  That is get them on camus and keep them on campus. Yes, athletes leave, but more arrive and more stay.  I, for one, did not want to see Otha Peters leave.  However, I can't help but see the departure of a 4-star recruit because he's getting pushed down the depth chart in a universally recognized position of need as a sign that our overall quality is improving.

EFBAB

[The Hogfather]

It's the same with LSU.  We rarely get their best games.     

This is bullshiz.  That's LSU's excuse for always playing close games with us/losing games to us.

[The Hogfather]

I almost qualified by saying "while in the SEC", but I assumed that we wouldn't be looking back 5 decades ago, because you know, the landscape back then is not comparable to today.  We haven't been in the game with any regularity since being in the SEC.  Circumstances are very different now.  That doesn't mean we can't overcome them, of course.  We just really haven't yet...with any consistency.

Against Auburn, 9-7 since Houston Nutt's 1st year, including 4-2 in our last 6.  Average score of 26-22 Arkansas.  Also, we're 5-3 AT Auburn since 1998, including a 27-10 thrashing of #2 Auburn early in the year in 2006.

Date      Opponent (record)   Result   Score   
11/2/2013   vs.   *Auburn (12-2)   L   17   35
10/6/2012   @   *Auburn (3-9)   W   24   7
10/8/2011   vs.   *Auburn (8-5)   W   38   14
10/16/2010   @   *Auburn (14-0)   L   43   65
10/10/2009   vs.   *Auburn (8-5)   W   44   23
10/11/2008   @   *Auburn (5-7)   W   25   22
10/13/2007   vs.   *Auburn (9-4)   L   7   9
10/7/2006   @   *Auburn (11-2)   W   27   10
10/15/2005   vs.   *Auburn (9-3)   L   17   34
10/16/2004   @   *Auburn (13-0)   L   20   38
10/11/2003   vs.   *Auburn (8-5)   L   3   10
10/12/2002   @   *Auburn (9-4)   W   38   17
10/27/2001   vs.   *Auburn (7-5)   W   42   17
10/28/2000   @   *Auburn (9-4)   L   19   21
10/30/1999   vs.   *Auburn (5-6)   W   34   10
10/31/1998   @   *Auburn (3-8)   W   24   21

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1998&end=2013&team1=Arkansas&team2=Auburn

[SharpTusk]

I spent some time skimming the past recruiting results of Auburn. General observation: Most of their 4-star signees in recent years turned out to be 2-3-star players. Some of their signees got the benefit of the doubt in ratings, just because they signed with Auburn.

It wasn't often that they had lesser-rated recruits turn out to be studs. The only one I can remember is Sammie Coates.

They had highly rated players not pan out at all, such as 5-star Christian Westerman, Kiehl Frazier and others. Michael Dyer and Trovon Reed were 5-stars. Dyer was good but didn't last. Reed was moved to DB from WR as a senior.

Then take DT Montravius Adams and DE Carl Lawson. They were 5-star prospects. Ought to be good players. But are they better than Darius Philon and Trey Flowers? No. Philon and Flowers were rated as 3-star prospects. Both are clearly 4-star level.

Bobby Petrino managed to put together good teams despite having a low hit rate in recruiting. Auburn had a higher hit rate than Petrino did, but they weren't outstanding by any means.

I'm thinking that Arkansas can have a recruiting hit rate good enough to compete consistently on the level of schools like Auburn, if someone will manage recruiting professionally and consistently well. Our ratings might never look as good as Auburn's, given the grade inflation they get.

When it comes to schools like Alabama and LSU -- where they truly recruit on another level -- sometimes getting what you wish for isn't all good. They have to deal with waves of players leaving early. They will have down years when they have too many losses to overcome. If Arkansas builds and stays consistent in its program, we'll be deep and experienced when even the best schools are down.

I'm not sure exactly what to think.  Let's say you're correct and that Auburn is on our level and that Alabama and LSU are on another.  I think that's correct, btw. 

On one hand it seems to mean that the Hogs have been losing badly with comparable talent, don't you think? 

On the other hand, it helps explain why, Arkansas beat Auburn for 4 of the 5 seasons from 2008 thru 2012.

Is the difference simply coaching?

[Biggus Piggus]

I'm not sure exactly what to think.  Let's say you're correct and that Auburn is on our level and that Alabama and LSU are on another.  I think that's correct, btw. 

I was trying to say that the difference in recruiting wasn't as great as it looks in the annual rankings, because there's something wrong with the split between 3 and 4-star rated players.

But it's also clear that Auburn is more consistent at getting the handful of true star players every year or two. The thought was that Arkansas could gain ground simply by being much more consistent in recruiting organization and effort.

[Sweet Pea]

Recruiting services are biased in favor of the fan base they're selling product or advertising to....but still based on team results at the end of the season they seem to mostly be on point

[Oklahawg]

Is the difference simply coaching?

It helps explain the impact of a radical shift in the coaching staffs and their styles.

[HogBreath]

huh? 2 NT games in 4 years and they enter as a top 5 team next year. Our talent isnt close yet. Rankings and stars only dont  matter to those not getting higher ranked ones.

Duh...we beat 'em about half the time, and during their Cam gate season, the refs actually decided a 14 point swing in our game.  Try to keep up.

[SharpTusk]

I was trying to say that the difference in recruiting wasn't as great as it looks in the annual rankings, because there's something wrong with the split between 3 and 4-star rated players.

But it's also clear that Auburn is more consistent at getting the handful of true star players every year or two. The thought was that Arkansas could gain ground simply by being much more consistent in recruiting organization and effort.

As unpopular as it might be, between a post I did in 2010 which started here and a big analysis of some 7500 recruits of Scout & Rivals over 11 years, I came to the conclusion that there are certain schools who can change their recruiting lots in life, but Arkansas isn't one of them. 

• Roughly two-thirds of the elite five star football recruits consistently take their talents to approximately 15% of Division I schools.
• 85% of the Division I football programs share the remaining one-third of the five star athletes.
• About one-half of all Division I teams will not have a five star recruit over a decade.
• Approximately 20% of the Division I schools recruit between 60-70% of all four star athletes.
• Although slightly broader than the list of schools reeling in most of the five star recruits, schools getting the bulk of four star recruits are the same.
• Around 85-90 BCS and FCS teams share between 30-40% of all four star recruits.
• With only very limited exceptions, sustained and substantial changes in the schools and in the number of schools recruiting of four and five star athletes recruited over the last eleven years has not happened. Said another way, the numbers of four and five star football players attending any particular school may vary from one year to the next (or even spike, see Clemson's Rivals five star recruits in 2011), but based upon the last eleven years, there is little variation over time for the vast majority of schools.
• BCS Champions from 2002 through 2012 have only come from teams with the most four and five star recruits over the last eleven years.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

As unpopular as it might be, between a post I did in 2010 which started here and a big analysis of some 7500 recruits of Scout & Rivals over 11 years, I came to the conclusion that there are certain schools who can change their recruiting lots in life, but Arkansas isn't one of them. 

• Roughly two-thirds of the elite five star football recruits consistently take their talents to approximately 15% of Division I schools.
• 85% of the Division I football programs share the remaining one-third of the five star athletes.
• About one-half of all Division I teams will not have a five star recruit over a decade.
• Approximately 20% of the Division I schools recruit between 60-70% of all four star athletes.
• Although slightly broader than the list of schools reeling in most of the five star recruits, schools getting the bulk of four star recruits are the same.
• Around 85-90 BCS and FCS teams share between 30-40% of all four star recruits.
• With only very limited exceptions, sustained and substantial changes in the schools and in the number of schools recruiting of four and five star athletes recruited over the last eleven years has not happened. Said another way, the numbers of four and five star football players attending any particular school may vary from one year to the next (or even spike, see Clemson's Rivals five star recruits in 2011), but based upon the last eleven years, there is little variation over time for the vast majority of schools.
• BCS Champions from 2002 through 2012 have only come from teams with the most four and five star recruits over the last eleven years.

That's great info Sharp! But let's not even discuss BCS Championships or even getting in the final four play off. Let's just talk about going to big bowls.

Look at Boise State. They have had a total of four 4 star players sign with them since 2002, yet they have made it to major bowls. Yes, I understand that their SOS pads their annual win percentage, but when they do play teams from the P-5 conferences, they usually always show up, play well and they have won a few of those as well.

Or take Louisville. Over that same period of time they have signed thirty 4 star players and one 5 star player. Again, there could be an argument made for SOS, but again, when they play the big boys they also usually show up.

Vandy has only signed fourteen 4 star players since 2002 and the majority of those over the last 3-4 years yet they have managed back to back 9 win seasons. I suppose we could qualify that by saying that they play in the East and not the West, but it is still the SEC.

I guess my point is, stars are not always an accurate representation of how certain players will perform in certain systems. As we all know, some 5 star and 4 star players deserve their ratings as players while others are overrated, maybe even the majority. But even if they do deserve their ratings doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to thrive in every system. Some are going to thrive in some systems and some are going to wither a bit and not perform as anticipated by their ranking.

The system a kid goes into (IMO) has everything to do with how that kid will perform at the college level and that even includes how much discipline there is in the program that they sign with. Some kids need more discipline in a program than others.

In the end, I think there are a lot of factors that play into how a kid is going to perform at the college level that have nothing to do with their stars rating.

[JansterZ71]

That's great info Sharp! But let's not even discuss BCS Championships or even getting in the final four play off. Let's just talk about going to big bowls.

Look at Boise State. They have had a total of four 4 star players sign with them since 2002, yet they have made it to major bowls. Yes, I understand that their SOS pads their annual win percentage, but when they do play teams from the P-5 conferences, they usually always show up, play well and they have won a few of those as well.

Or take Louisville. Over that same period of time they have signed thirty 4 star players and one 5 star player. Again, there could be an argument made for SOS, but again, when they play the big boys they also usually show up.

Vandy has only signed fourteen 4 star players since 2002 and the majority of those over the last 3-4 years yet they have managed back to back 9 win seasons. I suppose we could qualify that by saying that they play in the East and not the West, but it is still the SEC.

I guess my point is, stars are not always an accurate representation of how certain players will perform in certain systems. As we all know, some 5 star and 4 star players deserve their ratings as players while others are overrated, maybe even the majority. But even if they do deserve their ratings doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to thrive in every system. Some are going to thrive in some systems and some are going to wither a bit and not perform as anticipated by their ranking.

The system a kid goes into (IMO) has everything to do with how that kid will perform at the college level and that even includes how much discipline there is in the program that they sign with. Some kids need more discipline in a program than others.

In the end, I think there are a lot of factors that play into how a kid is going to perform at the college level that have nothing to do with their stars rating.

The difference is all those schools you named don't play in the Western Division of the SEC

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The difference is all those schools you named don't play in the Western Division of the SEC

Yeah I know, I covered that in the post.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Against Auburn, 9-7 since Houston Nutt's 1st year, including 4-2 in our last 6.  Average score of 26-22 Arkansas.  Also, we're 5-3 AT Auburn since 1998, including a 27-10 thrashing of #2 Auburn early in the year in 2006.

Date      Opponent (record)   Result   Score   
11/2/2013   vs.   *Auburn (12-2)   L   17   35
10/6/2012   @   *Auburn (3-9)   W   24   7
10/8/2011   vs.   *Auburn (8-5)   W   38   14
10/16/2010   @   *Auburn (14-0)   L   43   65
10/10/2009   vs.   *Auburn (8-5)   W   44   23
10/11/2008   @   *Auburn (5-7)   W   25   22
10/13/2007   vs.   *Auburn (9-4)   L   7   9
10/7/2006   @   *Auburn (11-2)   W   27   10
10/15/2005   vs.   *Auburn (9-3)   L   17   34
10/16/2004   @   *Auburn (13-0)   L   20   38
10/11/2003   vs.   *Auburn (8-5)   L   3   10
10/12/2002   @   *Auburn (9-4)   W   38   17
10/27/2001   vs.   *Auburn (7-5)   W   42   17
10/28/2000   @   *Auburn (9-4)   L   19   21
10/30/1999   vs.   *Auburn (5-6)   W   34   10
10/31/1998   @   *Auburn (3-8)   W   24   21

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1998&end=2013&team1=Arkansas&team2=Auburn

No clue what this has to do with my post.