Teams that do the most with the "least"

The only thing that this article shows is that recruiting rankings are garbage (GT won with "perceived" lesser talent).

The only thing that this article shows is that recruiting rankings are accurate (USC #1 in wins and recruiting rankings).
 
Yup, the thing in common with all the top 10 teams is that their fan bases buy very few recruiting website subscriptions. I bet if there was a list of whose done least with the most, mediocre SEC and Big 10 teams such as USCe would be at the top.

The other thing all these schools have in common is their higher academic standards, at least the three ACC schools. The kids who sign an LOI for us actually step foot on campus. The same can't be said for many SEC signees.
 
I think Florida's got the answer

There was a thread a couple of months ago where someone re-ranked the recruiting classes four years later or about that. The re-rankings accounted for the players who contributed and took out all the didn't qualifies, flunked out, got in trouble and were kicked out and so on. After re-ranking we looked pretty danged good; even some of our classes which no one thought much of at the time came out pretty good a few years down the road.
 
floridajacket said:
Yup, the thing in common with all the top 10 teams is that their fan bases buy very few recruiting website subscriptions. I bet if there was a list of whose done least with the most, mediocre SEC and Big 10 teams such as USCe would be at the top.

The other thing all these schools have in common is their higher academic standards, at least the three ACC schools. The kids who sign an LOI for us actually step foot on campus. The same can't be said for many SEC signees.
Click to expand...


There is such a list, click the link for 10 - 66.

The ACC is well represented at the bottom as well, with UNC, FSU, and Miami.

The rank is flawed as one comment points out because the time period that should be comared for wins should be later than the recruiting window. But it is still probably good as an overall indicator as year to year recruit ranksing don't fluctuate that much.
 
JWE37 said:
The only thing that this article shows is that recruiting rankings are garbage (GT won with "perceived" lesser talent).

The only thing that this article shows is that recruiting rankings are accurate (USC #1 in wins and recruiting rankings).
Click to expand...
The real truth is no one can really predict how good a player someone will be on a consistent basis over a large pool of players. Recruiting services can't on high school kids and pro scouts can't on college players. You can get a high percentage pretty much right if you're really, really good. But to argue about whether a kid is the #12 RB and the #25 is just stupid. And to suggest someone can tell the #15 recruiting class from the #15 is even stupider.
 
ncjacket said:
The real truth is no one can really predict how good a player someone will be on a consistent basis over a large pool of players. Recruiting services can't on high school kids and pro scouts can't on college players. You can get a high percentage pretty much right if you're really, really good. But to argue about whether a kid is the #12 RB and the #25 is just stupid. And to suggest someone can tell the #15 recruiting class from the #15 is even stupider.
Click to expand...

It's like poker - you can't predict how good a particular player (hand) will turn out but if you keep making solid decisions based on good selection criteria you'll make more than your share of good decisions. That's coaches I am talking about, not the mag writers.

There's a big difference between somebody trying to rate everybody in the country (can't be done without relying on a lot of heresay) and a coaching staff who funnels down their particular set of prospects and ends up picking 20 out of their top 80 or 100.
 
gthog61 said:
It's like poker - you can't predict how good a particular player (hand) will turn out but if you keep making solid decisions based on good selection criteria you'll make more than your share of good decisions. That's coaches I am talking about, not the mag writers.

There's a big difference between somebody trying to rate everybody in the country (can't be done without relying on a lot of heresay) and a coaching staff who funnels down their particular set of prospects and ends up picking 20 out of their top 80 or 100.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with that.
 
And to suggest someone can tell the #15 recruiting class from the #15 is even stupider.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that, it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between a #15 class and a #15 class. You may as well say they're the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top