UT/OU Talent Comparison: Recruiting

[Duck in a pen]

According to Rivals, the past 4 recruiting cycles for UT/OU are:
2011 UT #13 with 12 4*, 14 3*; OU #14 with 2 5*, 7 4*, and 8 3*
2012 UT #17 with 10 4*, 9 3*; OU #11 with 1 5*, 11 4*, and 13 3*
2013 UT #21 with 5 4*, 15 3*; OU #15 with 7 4*, 14 3*
2014 UT #5 with 2 5*, 16 4*, 13 3*; OU #15 with 1 5*, 8 4*, 14 3*

During this 4 year cycle UT averaged a ranking of 11.5 (obviously helped significantly by 2014) and OU averaged 13.75. UT signed 2 5*, 43 4*, 37 3*; OU 4 5*, 33 4*, and 49 3*

Of course there has been attrition and some players don't pan out. So, I evaluated the star ratings of the 2 deep for both programs going into this weekend. This 2 deep came from Rivals and may not be completely accurate, but should give some idea of the star ratings. UT 2 5*, 23 4*, 21 3*, 1 2*; OU 0 5*, 23 4*, 28 3*, 3 2*.

From a raw talent perspective, there is no gap. We all know our deficiencies lie in lack of experience and depth on the lines of scrimmage, but we certainly are not deficient in raw talent.

GBO!

 

[Duck in a pen]

Remarkably, they have signed 4 5* in the cycle but have 0 on the 2 deep

 

[DERELICK_MY_VOLS]

According to Rivals, the past 4 recruiting cycles for UT/OU are:
2011 UT #13 with 12 4*, 14 3*; OU #14 with 2 5*, 7 4*, and 8 3*
2012 UT #17 with 10 4*, 9 3*; OU #11 with 1 5*, 11 4*, and 13 3*
2013 UT #21 with 5 4*, 15 3*; OU #15 with 7 4*, 14 3*
2014 UT #5 with 2 5*, 16 4*, 13 3*; OU #15 with 1 5*, 8 4*, 14 3*

During this 4 year cycle UT averaged a ranking of 11.5 (obviously helped significantly by 2014) and OU averaged 13.75. UT signed 2 5*, 43 4*, 37 3*; OU 4 5*, 33 4*, and 49 3*

Of course there has been attrition and some players don't pan out. So, I evaluated the star ratings of the 2 deep for both programs going into this weekend. This 2 deep came from Rivals and may not be completely accurate, but should give some idea of the star ratings. UT 2 5*, 23 4*, 21 3*, 1 2*; OU 0 5*, 23 4*, 28 3*, 3 2*.

From a raw talent perspective, there is no gap. We all know our deficiencies lie in lack of experience and depth on the lines of scrimmage, but we certainly are not deficient in raw talent.

GBO!

Butch took a roster in 2010 ranked by Rivals-----2006/#109, 2007/#90, 2008/#67, 2009/#60, 2010/#59 vs. OU's roster superior athletes 2006/#9, 2007/#14, 2008/#6, 2009/#13, 2010/#7----and almost completed the upset with a team that went 4-8.

This staff is confident facing Stoops and OU...with a much larger upgrade in talent even if it is young. Excited to see what this staff has put together for this game.

Put that up in another thread....

 

[DocVOLiday]

So you saying we gon whoop dey azz?

 

[UTChicagoV]

Remarkably, they have signed 4 5* in the cycle but have 0 on the 2 deep

Only had 3 5*s in the time period you're showing.

2 5*s from 2011...Williams is now with Texas A&M. Metoyer has been suspended since 2013.

Metoyer intially showed as 2011 but went to Hargrave and showed up again in the 2012 class.

Mixon is their 5* from 2014 and he's suspended for the season.

Agree that the talent gap isn't huge in the 2 Deep, but experience and time in a college S&C program are where our Vols are lacking.

 

[Biopsyman]

Not relevant to the game at all. We are very young and inexperienced all over the field compared to most if all all major college programs including OK and especially on the OL and DL. Having said that we have a chance to shock the world. VOLS 27 OU 24

 

[Duck in a pen]

Only had 3 5*s in the time period you're showing.

2 5*s from 2011...Williams is now with Texas A&M. Metoyer has been suspended since 2013.

Metoyer intially showed as 2011 but went to Hargrave and showed up again in the 2012 class.

Mixon is their 5* from 2014 and he's suspended for the season.

Agree that the talent gap isn't huge in the 2 Deep, but experience and time in a college S&C program are where our Vols are lacking.

Which means their average ranking of 13.75 is inflated by 5* guys who will never play for them

 

[AV_12]

This argument was made with Oregon last year as well... So yea

 

[MedicT]

Those who have strapped on chin strap at some point in their lives realize that statistics can produce some interesting generalizations about a football game but little of any specific information of value. Those who spent their youth "riding the pine" find it very interesting for some reason. LOL

 

[Duck in a pen]

Those who have strapped on chin strap at some point in their lives realize that statistics can produce some interesting generalizations about a football game but little of any specific information of value. Those who spent their youth "riding the pine" find it very interesting for some reason. LOL

Wow, feel better now?

 

[ACvol3]

This argument was made with Oregon last year as well... So yea

And ark state/usu this year.. So yeah

 

[MedicT]

Why yes, yes I do, Thank You! No intentention of offending anyone, but I do have to chuckle when someone tries to reduce football to a statistical analysis in all but very, very general terms.

 

[Duck in a pen]

Why yes, yes I do, Thank You! No intentention of offending anyone, but I do have to chuckle when someone tries to reduce football to a statistical analysis in all but very, very general terms.

All of your failed relationships when you blamed her... It wasn't her

 

[AV_12]

And ark state/usu this year.. So yeah

Yeah, good comparison... Not

 

[MedicT]

All of your failed relationships when you blamed her... It wasn't her

Is that why they kept calling?

 

[ATW]

I wouldn't worry too much about the star system. It's which players fill a need combined with how well the coaches develop the players. During Bob Stoops tenure many of his better teams were comprised of 3 and 4 star kids. The people who rank the players sometimes don't do a good job of evaluating talent. Coaches know how to judge talent, desire, intelligence, and toughness. We've busted on our fair share of 5 star players who had 1 star attitudes.

 

[orangebloodgmc]

I think the OP makes a good point. Others have at least implied, if not outright stated directly, that we are inferior to OK in talent. He presents some evidence that that may not be the case. If the star ratings are imperfect, with the implication that the OU players are better than that ... same could be said for our guys. True, their guys in the trenches are senior to our's ... but we'll see what happens.

 

[Duck in a pen]

This argument was made with Oregon last year as well... So yea

I wasn't making an argument or drawing conclusions, just pointing out published talent evaluations that imply we have physical talent comparable to OU.

 

[ericpVOL4LIFE]

According to Rivals, the past 4 recruiting cycles for UT/OU are:
2011 UT #13 with 12 4*, 14 3*; OU #14 with 2 5*, 7 4*, and 8 3*
2012 UT #17 with 10 4*, 9 3*; OU #11 with 1 5*, 11 4*, and 13 3*
2013 UT #21 with 5 4*, 15 3*; OU #15 with 7 4*, 14 3*
2014 UT #5 with 2 5*, 16 4*, 13 3*; OU #15 with 1 5*, 8 4*, 14 3*

During this 4 year cycle UT averaged a ranking of 11.5 (obviously helped significantly by 2014) and OU averaged 13.75. UT signed 2 5*, 43 4*, 37 3*; OU 4 5*, 33 4*, and 49 3*

Of course there has been attrition and some players don't pan out. So, I evaluated the star ratings of the 2 deep for both programs going into this weekend. This 2 deep came from Rivals and may not be completely accurate, but should give some idea of the star ratings. UT 2 5*, 23 4*, 21 3*, 1 2*; OU 0 5*, 23 4*, 28 3*, 3 2*.

From a raw talent perspective, there is no gap. We all know our deficiencies lie in lack of experience and depth on the lines of scrimmage, but we certainly are not deficient in raw talent.

GBO!

I"ll put some of that in my kool-aid . hmmm ! :lolabove:

 

[Catbone]

Lol

 

[PagingDrVol]

This thread is basically the perfect illustration of why using stars to represent talent is a basically useless exercise. Stars only represent the quality of the raw material, not the final product. If you go out and acquire the finest raw materials in the world - aluminum, steel, wood, etc. - and then assemble them into the design of a Toyota Camry, do you know what you have? A freaking Toyota Camry. Which the competition can still beat if it has vastly inferior materials but a superior design. Ferrari can build it's car with second rate parts and still blow the Camry's doors off.

This is why stargazers are the stupidest football fans alive. It's far more important to have the best blueprint than to have the best materials. Sure, you'd like to have both, but if you have to choose between 5 stars coached averagely or 3 stars coached extremely well, you should choose the latter every time. It's exactly why Boise State, Oklahoma, Va Tech, etc consistently outperform their star rankings, and why Georgia, despite its ridiculous recruiting, never makes the title game.

Talent is only worth what you make of it AFTER it's already on campus. Stars are cute, but coaching wins titles. Give me Stoops, Miles, Snyder, Fisher all day over Richt or Urban and their 5-star rosters, any day.

 

[Volador]

Well don't forget that a team can have the top players and lose mucho games if their coaching staff isn't up to par. I like that they have Schtoops - he can be beat.

 

[Rifleman]

Those who have strapped on chin strap at some point in their lives realize that statistics can produce some interesting generalizations about a football game but little of any specific information of value. Those who spent their youth "riding the pine" find it very interesting for some reason. LOL

So basically you're saying that if you get hit a lot during games you don't math no good no more?

 

[PagingDrVol]

Well don't forget that a team can have the top players and lose mucho games if their coaching staff isn't up to par. I like that they have Schtoops - he can be beat.

He can be beat, but only in road games he doesn't care about (or in very rare home games the players don't care about). I assure you, the OU players care about this game, and the coaches have had it circled since January. They're striping the freaking stadium for Tennessee, and Bob is talking smack on the radio so his players will be fired up to back him up. Oklahoma does choke too often, but never in home games versus opponents they respect.

 

[Duck in a pen]

This thread is basically the perfect illustration of why using stars to represent talent is a basically useless exercise. Stars only represent the quality of the raw material, not the final product. If you go out and acquire the finest raw materials in the world - aluminum, steel, wood, etc. - and then assemble them into the design of a Toyota Camry, do you know what you have? A freaking Toyota Camry. Which the competition can still beat if it has vastly inferior materials but a superior design. Ferrari can build it's car with second rate parts and still blow the Camry's doors off.

This is why stargazers are the stupidest football fans alive. It's far more important to have the best blueprint than to have the best materials. Sure, you'd like to have both, but if you have to choose between 5 stars coached averagely or 3 stars coached extremely well, you should choose the latter every time. It's exactly why Boise State, Oklahoma, Va Tech, etc consistently outperform their star rankings, and why Georgia, despite its ridiculous recruiting, never makes the title game.

Talent is only worth what you make of it AFTER it's already on campus. Stars are cute, but coaching wins titles. Give me Stoops, Miles, Snyder, Fisher all day over Richt or Urban and their 5-star rosters, any day.

Completely agree. I would also add that what separates Urban from Butch is that Butch recruits talent AND character. Even Stoops has lost every 5 star he has recruited in the past 4 years, most to character issues. I reiterate that I started this thread to compare talent evaluations of these kids when they went to their respective campuses; not to say that translates to a victory, but to merely show we have recruited comparable athletes.