recruiting rankings

#3
#3
Those are some hard facts to argue with...but I'm sure they'll be plenty who'll still point to our current (I emphasize current) lack of 4*'s in this class as a serious problem
 
#4
#4
"Only No. 1 Auburn, No. 7 Alabama and No. 9 Oklahoma had recruiting classes ranked in the top 20 all three years in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It’s worth noting that Auburn barely made it in two of those years, finishing 20th in 2008 and 19th in 2009. "

Just Noticed that each of those schools were a #1 team at some time this year!
 
#7
#7
tvols75 said:
Did he cite a message board poster as his source... if not then he stole that material.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% ... I saw this posted here earlier and it was copied from someone on TOS, the only difference was the TOS posting had an average ranking for the years posted as well..

Wow ... this is low for even Chris Low, plagiarism, must not be important to his editor
 
#8
#8
volfan4evr said:
"Only No. 1 Auburn, No. 7 Alabama and No. 9 Oklahoma had recruiting classes ranked in the top 20 all three years in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It’s worth noting that Auburn barely made it in two of those years, finishing 20th in 2008 and 19th in 2009. "

Just Noticed that each of those schools were a #1 team at some time this year!
Click to expand...

Alabama and Oklahoma also lost to teams who were not ranked in the top 20 in recruiting.
 
#11
#11
Coastypop said:
I agree 100% ... I saw this posted here earlier and it was copied from someone on TOS, the only difference was the TOS posting had an average ranking for the years posted as well..

Wow ... this is low for even Chris Low, plagiarism, must not be important to his editor
Click to expand...

Data can't be plagiarized. If the content or words in his article are his then he has done nothing wrong.

There is no need to cite or source anything in his article - it is all public information from ESPN or Rivals.

And in his chart he used 07, 08, 09 from ESPN. The one on TOS used 07, 08, 09, and 10 from Rivals.

I know you all hate Low, but this is a good informative article. Especially for all those star gazers.
 
#12
#12
SpringBokVol said:
Data can't be plagiarized. If the content or words in his article are his then he has done nothing wrong.

There is no need to cite or source anything in his article - it is all public information from ESPN or Rivals.

And in his chart he used 07, 08, 09 from ESPN. The one on TOS used 07, 08, 09, and 10 from Rivals.

I know you all hate Low, but this is a good informative article. Especially for all those star gazers.
Click to expand...

Yes he changed a couple of things, but do you really believe this was his original idea? He got it from a message board and then put his touch on it so he could write a story.
 
#13
#13
To plays devil's advocate, I would be curious to see where those schools ranked vis-a-vis the schools they played. It's one thing to be 50th in recruiting when your top opponent is 60th. It seems to be quite another to be 10th when nine of your opponents are 1-9.

One thing those schools all seem to have in common is stable coaching staffs over a long period of time and little attrition from their unheralded recruiting classes. So the premise is probably correct--winning teams have good players, good coaches, and good stable systems.
 
#14
#14
tvols75 said:
Yes he changed a couple of things, but do you really believe this was his original idea? He got it from a message board and then put his touch on it so he could write a story.
Click to expand...

No...the real question is do YOU honestly think that posters on a message board had a thought to do something that nobody else had ever thought of before. Isn't it conceivable that multiple people have had this idea before? I hadn't seen the VN or TOS thread on this, and even I had wondered how well success correlated with recruiting ranking systems. I just didn't have the time or patience to do the research myself. This is a commonly asked question, and I highly doubt some message board gave Low the idea.
 
#15
#15
Coaching is responsible for the development of all aspects of the program (assistant coaches, player development, effective offense/defense options, etc.) It is the development of these aspects that truly define the future status of a program. In recruiting, the 'star' opinion is good as a broad screen of all players potential, and the 'other offers' list is further refinement of his potential in a given program. However, if the coaches do not develop the players and insert options that exploit these skills, then it becomes an effort of mediocracy.
 
#16
#16
Also interesting that I noticed that there are only 3 5 star players committed now in the entire SEC. Most are 4 and 3 star players. Shows you where the base talent comes from. Not that most teams would not like to have a 5 star player or so. Rankings don't mean much in the big picture in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
How many national champions since 2002 had 2 top-5 recruiting classes on their roster? Try all of them. How many national title appearances since 2002 were with teams that had 2 top-5 recruiting classes on their roster? Try all of them. What percentage of Big-4 conference titles (SEC, Big 12, Big 10, PAC-10) have been won by a team in the top third of the conference in recruiting? Try 90% of the time. What percentage of teams with the highest and most rankings since 2000 averaged 2 top-5 recruiting classes every five years? Try 8 of the 10.

The article is mostly useless -- it merely shows how a mid-season poll can show an anomalous result at a certain time shot, but it's the rare exception to the rule, not the rule.
 
#18
#18
UtahVol said:
To plays devil's advocate, I would be curious to see where those schools ranked vis-a-vis the schools they played. It's one thing to be 50th in recruiting when your top opponent is 60th. It seems to be quite another to be 10th when nine of your opponents are 1-9.

One thing those schools all seem to have in common is stable coaching staffs over a long period of time and little attrition from their unheralded recruiting classes. So the premise is probably correct--winning teams have good players, good coaches, and good stable systems.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

# of Top-5 Recruiting Opponents Those Undefeated Teams Have Beaten

Oregon - 0
Boise - 0
TCU - 0
Utah - 0
Michigan State - 0
Missouri - 0

# of Top-10 Recruiting Opponents Those Teams Have Beaten

Oregon - 0
Boise - 0
TCU - 0
Utah - 0
Michigan State - 0
Missouri - 1
 
#20
#20
I think the point of the article is if you have good coaches who recruit what they need, not what people want they are successful.
 
#21
#21
tayrorree said:
I think the point of the article is if you have good coaches who recruit what they need, not what people want they are successful.
Click to expand...

Perfect example would be Boise State. I may get some flack for this, but they strike me as a team that recruits for needs rather than wants. There aren't many big names on their lists, but yet they contribute to consistent top 10 seasons. This, in my opinion, is a testament to the coaching that they receive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#22
#22
Ravenheart said:
Perfect example would be Boise State. I may get some flack for this, but they strike me as a team that recruits for needs rather than wants. There aren't many big names on their lists, but yet they contribute to consistent top 10 seasons. This, in my opinion, is a testament to the coaching that they receive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

lol, or the easy schedule they play.

they would never finish in the top 10 with their roster if they played in the SEC.

an SEC team needs to consistently recruit well or they have no chance.
 
#23
#23
Ravenheart said:
Perfect example would be Boise State. I may get some flack for this, but they strike me as a team that recruits for needs rather than wants. There aren't many big names on their lists, but yet they contribute to consistent top 10 seasons. This, in my opinion, is a testament to the coaching that they receive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What contributes to "consistent top 10 seasons" is never playing a team in the regular season that has ever been a top-5, or even a top-10, recruiting program over time, and feasting off a host of horrid programs like San Jose State, New Mexico, etc...
 
#24
#24
VegasVol said:
What contributes to "consistent top 10 seasons" is never playing a team in the regular season that has ever been a top-5, or even a top-10, recruiting program over time, and feasting off a host of horrid programs like San Jose State, New Mexico, etc...
Click to expand...

The 2009 Ducks and the 2010 Hokies would disagree.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
Ravenheart said:
The 2009 Ducks and the 2010 Hokies would disagree.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Those were also games they had an entire offseason to game plan for. With no one left on their schedule to worry about makes it easier for them to be succesful against teams in tougher conferences.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top