Top Recruiting Isn't a Prerequisite for a BCS Berth

#2
#2
The Count analyzed 1,496 bowl-game starters and found that just 8.4% of them were top-100 recruits.
 
#3
#3
Of the 10 teams playing in the top 5 bowls this year, four of them have zero top 100 recruits
 
#4
#4
Sure doesn't hurt though. Also, 2 out of those 4 teams are not in BCS conferences.
 
Last edited:
#5
#5
if we don't land a #1 class we will be in trouble. no chance for a good year in 2011. we need at least 3-4 5*star recruits this class.....:crazy:
 
#6
#6
None of those teams had to make it through the SEC. Only Bama and UF did that and they have the most of those players.
 
#7
#7
The WSJ should stick to covering Wal Street. Those percentages are skewed because because of Cincy and two non-BCS teams. If you want to compete for NCs you better have top 100 recruits. Just look at the past national champions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
tri_vol said:
The WSJ should stick to covering Wal Street. Those percentages are skewed because because of Cincy and two non-BCS teams. If you want to compete for NCs you better have top 100 recruits. Just look at the past national champions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Took the words out of my mouth. Thread is over, everyone go home now.
 
#9
#9
No it's not. But could an argument be made that if you take the teams who have finished top 10 in recruiting the last few years that it would make for more 'worthy' BCS matchups?

Think about it. If you look at last year's top 10 recruiting rankings..

Would North Carolina vs Penn State not be a better matchup than Georgia Tech/Iowa?

Ohio St vs USC is always fun to watch. Though Oregon is better this year.

How exciting would it be to see Florida manhandle Notre Dame in the superdome? I know two teams from same conference can't play each other, but Florida vs LSU would be exciting.

I'm not watching TCU vs Boise State. I would rather see Texas and TCU switch games.
 
#10
#10
Being in the BCS championship game is what matters...being in a BCS game is politics and not related to being the best. TCU, Cincy, and Boise are not top ten teams. Others will repond to this with much to do about nothing. If they played against the same competition as SEC or Pac10 teams they would certainly have lost multiple games. And beating one team from a conference is not the same as playing a conference schedule against real competition. Depth and talent needs would be much greater.
 
#11
#11
Jewbaccah said:
Being in the BCS championship game is what matters...being in a BCS game is politics and not related to being the best. TCU, Cincy, and Boise are not top ten teams. Others will repond to this with much to do about nothing. If they played against the same competition as SEC or Pac10 teams they would certainly have lost multiple games. And beating one team from a conference is not the same as playing a conference schedule against real competition. Depth and talent needs would be much greater.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Anything other than the national championship game means nothing. Hasn't the national title winner finished in the top 3 in recruiting this whole decade?
 
#12
#12
This is great news if you're in the Big East, ACC, Mountain West, or WAC.

But, for BCS representatives from the SEC, top recruiting is a prerequisite.
 
#13
#13
rexvol said:
The Count analyzed 1,496 bowl-game starters and found that just 8.4% of them were top-100 recruits.
Click to expand...

There are what, 120 division 1 teams? 80 scholarships per team gives u 9600 players. By their very definition of top 100 players, over the period of say 4 years that works out to only a little over 2% of total players are "top 100" players. That would mean the exact opposite of what they're trying to prove since 8.4 % are top 100 players on those teams meaning they have a higher percentage of the total available top 100 players.... Statistics Fail.
 
#14
#14
Jewbaccah said:
Being in the BCS championship game is what matters...being in a BCS game is politics and not related to being the best. TCU, Cincy, and Boise are not top ten teams. Others will repond to this with much to do about nothing. If they played against the same competition as SEC or Pac10 teams they would certainly have lost multiple games. And beating one team from a conference is not the same as playing a conference schedule against real competition. Depth and talent needs would be much greater.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY...not mention the fact that they aren't beat up physically after playing bigger, stronger, and faster athletes of better teams. It's one thing to play basically practice games all year and prepare for one respectable opponent at the end of the year..... It's another to have to play your best players the entire game and throw everything you have at an opponent game after game. The coaches benefit from this as well. Boise State would not have beaten Oklahoma in the Fiesta bowl had they been forced to bring those trick plays(and others) out earlier in the season in order to go undefeated. These programs know they can't compete with elite programs and thats why they won't schedule any during the season.
 
#15
#15
If you checked Bosie St. And TCU recruiting rankings they might not have top 100 players but I bet within their conference they have the highest recruiting rankings in their divisions. They might get lucky every now and then and knock off a top program but like other posters have said they just wouldn't cut it in the S.e.c.
 
#16
#16
Jaytrain5 said:
This is great news if you're in the Big East, ACC, Mountain West, or WAC.

But, for BCS representatives from the SEC, top recruiting is a prerequisite.
Click to expand...

This

If we were in a differant conference then this theory about recruiting could be valid for us...

But if you're going to make it to a BCS bowl coming out of the SEC you better be at the top of the recruiting rankings every year or you don't stand a chance
 
#17
#17
Smokeyman said:
There are what, 120 division 1 teams? 80 scholarships per team gives u 9600 players. By their very definition of top 100 players, over the period of say 4 years that works out to only a little over 2% of total players are "top 100" players. That would mean the exact opposite of what they're trying to prove since 8.4 % are top 100 players on those teams meaning they have a higher percentage of the total available top 100 players.... Statistics Fail.
Click to expand...

Good point! Statistics is realitive anyway. Anyone can take data and construe it to make it fit their own personal points.
 
#18
#18
I doubt if Saban, Kiffin, and Meyer stopped recruiting top 100 players that they would be anywhere near a BCS bowl in the next decade.
 
#19
#19
Smokeyman said:
There are what, 120 division 1 teams? 80 scholarships per team gives u 9600 players. By their very definition of top 100 players, over the period of say 4 years that works out to only a little over 2% of total players are "top 100" players. That would mean the exact opposite of what they're trying to prove since 8.4 % are top 100 players on those teams meaning they have a higher percentage of the total available top 100 players.... Statistics Fail.
Click to expand...


This This This This This..... Did I mention I agree? There were only 400 top 100 players in the last four years which adds up to roughly 27% of 1496 starters in the Bowl games. The count doesn't mention injuries, ineligible players, Red shirt Freshman, high caliber teams with 30-40 or more top 100 players on the roster such as Florida and Alabama, Texas, USC, etc. Statistics major fail in this count.
 
#20
#20
I found this rather interesting. Since the conception of rivals.com rankings in 2002, the #1 rated class of each year has gone on to win a National Championship at least once (with the exception of Alabama -- and as we all know, they're headed to one this year.)

To me, it's a pretty telling sign about recruiting.

Recruiting: Recruiting NC/Team/Actual NC

2002/Texas/2005
2003/LSU/2003, 2007
2004/USC/2003 (debatable), 2004
2005/USC/"
2006/USC/"
2007/UF/2006, 2008
2008/Alabama/N/A
2009/Alabama/N/A

Might not be as conclusive as I have made it out to be. But it shows that the dominance of recruiting rolls over into success on the playing field. I know many agree with it, but I noticed a trend and wanted to share to reaffirm these beliefs.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Smokeyman said:
There are what, 120 division 1 teams? 80 scholarships per team gives u 9600 players. By their very definition of top 100 players, over the period of say 4 years that works out to only a little over 2% of total players are "top 100" players. That would mean the exact opposite of what they're trying to prove since 8.4 % are top 100 players on those teams meaning they have a higher percentage of the total available top 100 players.... Statistics Fail.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing, good point. This is just a terrible article, whoever wrote it sucks. WSJ is a very good business publication but this article is garbage and the person obviously hasn't taken an entry level statistics class.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top