I have beat my head against a wall trying to add some objectivity to this board, and I guess I will try one more time.
First, it seems that so many people are having a breakdown about team A's supposed great class, and team B's supposed terrible class. No roster is completed with a team of one recruiting class. In fact, a roster is (more or less) an average of roughly 4 years of players. Without going into great detail in the methodology, which I have done on here many times before, a great predictor of success is a teams 4 year trailing recruiting average.
Using this paradigm, here is the SEC ranked in order of average recruiting classes over the past four years, including the 2013 class as it stands today.
Now compare that to last year (2012):
Do you notice how far we moved? We have the 6th most talented team in the SEC, when comparing rosters, same as last year. Notice we are the 3rd most talented team in the east. I have read more than once posters on this site lamenting how far we are sliding in the SEC because we were *gasp* 11th this year in recruiting. How does that effect our overall talent? It didn't.
Again, I have gone into great depth and detail in several earlier threads about this very topic, so I will not go into every counter argument as to why this "supposedly" doesn't work. It does. Yes, I know that Vanderbilt beat UT last year with a huge dearth in talent. Rest assured that UT, under Dooley, was the largest under performing team in the SEC (Auburn actually was slightly worse last year, but that was not a long term trend). Vanderbilt was the highest over performing team in the SEC (Petrino's Arkansas teams were previously). In essence, trust me, talent (assuming simply a competent coaching staff, which we have not had in years) is the greatest indicator of success on the field. All of this talk about new schemes, coaching changes, et al when viewed numerically and objectively rarely effect the outcome. It is simply talent v. talent 60-70% of the time.
The bottom line is this: even with our attrition (which is not atypical when viewed along the whole SEC) we still have a team full of very talented players. We are set, along with Auburn, to make the biggest jump in success. I think that the numbers indicate that we can have the best year that we have had since 2009.
Butch Jones NEVER performed lower than his talent based evaluation (at Cincy), and typically is a talent +2 game coach. Even when he won 4 games at his first year at Cincinnati, that is exactly what his talent predicted. He went on to a 9 and 10 win season, which averaged +3 games more than his talent would indicate.
This evaluation works in the SEC as it does in every other conference. All of this talk about the SEC being built on defense, or being superior because of coaches doesn't mesh with the numbers. Typically, even out of conference games are won by the more talented roster. Even this year's national championship game was no exception. Notre Dame's talent was basically on par with UT. Isn't it funny how the score was almost identical to the UT v. Bama score?
Finally, do you want something that will really "cook your noodle?" UT's average is 14.75, and we will go into Autzen stadium next year to play an Oregon team that averages...wait for it...14.75.
First, it seems that so many people are having a breakdown about team A's supposed great class, and team B's supposed terrible class. No roster is completed with a team of one recruiting class. In fact, a roster is (more or less) an average of roughly 4 years of players. Without going into great detail in the methodology, which I have done on here many times before, a great predictor of success is a teams 4 year trailing recruiting average.
Using this paradigm, here is the SEC ranked in order of average recruiting classes over the past four years, including the 2013 class as it stands today.
- Alabama (2)
- Florida (5.25)
- Auburn (7.25)
- LSU (9)
- Georgia (11)
- Tennessee (14.75)
- Texas A&M (17.25)
- South Carolina (19.25)
- Ole Miss (21)
- Arkansas (33.25)
- Mississippi State (34.25)
- Missouri (34.75)
- Vanderbilt (44.75)
- Kentucky (50.25)
Now compare that to last year (2012):
- Alabama (2)
- Florida (7)
- LSU (8)
- Georgia (9.5)
- Auburn (10)
- Tennessee (12.25)
- South Carolina (18.25)
- Texas A&M (20.25)
- Ole Miss (23.75)
- Arkansas (30.75)
- Mississippi State (34.25)
- Missouri (35)
- Kentucky (53.5)
- Vanderbilt (57.75)
Do you notice how far we moved? We have the 6th most talented team in the SEC, when comparing rosters, same as last year. Notice we are the 3rd most talented team in the east. I have read more than once posters on this site lamenting how far we are sliding in the SEC because we were *gasp* 11th this year in recruiting. How does that effect our overall talent? It didn't.
Again, I have gone into great depth and detail in several earlier threads about this very topic, so I will not go into every counter argument as to why this "supposedly" doesn't work. It does. Yes, I know that Vanderbilt beat UT last year with a huge dearth in talent. Rest assured that UT, under Dooley, was the largest under performing team in the SEC (Auburn actually was slightly worse last year, but that was not a long term trend). Vanderbilt was the highest over performing team in the SEC (Petrino's Arkansas teams were previously). In essence, trust me, talent (assuming simply a competent coaching staff, which we have not had in years) is the greatest indicator of success on the field. All of this talk about new schemes, coaching changes, et al when viewed numerically and objectively rarely effect the outcome. It is simply talent v. talent 60-70% of the time.
The bottom line is this: even with our attrition (which is not atypical when viewed along the whole SEC) we still have a team full of very talented players. We are set, along with Auburn, to make the biggest jump in success. I think that the numbers indicate that we can have the best year that we have had since 2009.
Butch Jones NEVER performed lower than his talent based evaluation (at Cincy), and typically is a talent +2 game coach. Even when he won 4 games at his first year at Cincinnati, that is exactly what his talent predicted. He went on to a 9 and 10 win season, which averaged +3 games more than his talent would indicate.
This evaluation works in the SEC as it does in every other conference. All of this talk about the SEC being built on defense, or being superior because of coaches doesn't mesh with the numbers. Typically, even out of conference games are won by the more talented roster. Even this year's national championship game was no exception. Notre Dame's talent was basically on par with UT. Isn't it funny how the score was almost identical to the UT v. Bama score?
Finally, do you want something that will really "cook your noodle?" UT's average is 14.75, and we will go into Autzen stadium next year to play an Oregon team that averages...wait for it...14.75.
Last edited:
