I can't understand the moaning and groaning with our recruits...

[basedog]

First off, you recruit needs, second the so called high profile recruits which are your skill position players are the ones that get you high rankings or the attention! Thirdly and may be the most under-rating of them all are the kids from Ms. They just don't get the attention of the national recruits from other states. Alot of that has to do with small rural towns and Ms just doesn't bring the media attention needed as does Tx, Fl, Ga, Al, Cal and other heavily populated states.
I once was a coach (basketball) at a Mid level school and I can tell you that it really isn't much different in a so called 2 star compared to 3 star and 3 starcompared to a 4 star and so on. With the media ranking us in the mid 30's doesn't mean a damn thing as to what kind of team we will be 3 or 4 years fron now. Again being ranked in the mid 30's ain't all that much different from being in the mid 20's or mid teens.
Hey, I thought Mullen and staff did a good job with recruiting, but reading "some" of the post about us having a sub par class is crazy, how do you know?
Recruiting is important but to say we didn't do good is nuts, relax and hopefully things will be good starting with next year and we can keep building.

 

[basedog]

First off, you recruit needs, second the so called high profile recruits which are your skill position players are the ones that get you high rankings or the attention! Thirdly and may be the most under-rating of them all are the kids from Ms. They just don't get the attention of the national recruits from other states. Alot of that has to do with small rural towns and Ms just doesn't bring the media attention needed as does Tx, Fl, Ga, Al, Cal and other heavily populated states.
I once was a coach (basketball) at a Mid level school and I can tell you that it really isn't much different in a so called 2 star compared to 3 star and 3 starcompared to a 4 star and so on. With the media ranking us in the mid 30's doesn't mean a damn thing as to what kind of team we will be 3 or 4 years fron now. Again being ranked in the mid 30's ain't all that much different from being in the mid 20's or mid teens.
Hey, I thought Mullen and staff did a good job with recruiting, but reading "some" of the post about us having a sub par class is crazy, how do you know?
Recruiting is important but to say we didn't do good is nuts, relax and hopefully things will be good starting with next year and we can keep building.

 

[basedog]

First off, you recruit needs, second the so called high profile recruits which are your skill position players are the ones that get you high rankings or the attention! Thirdly and may be the most under-rating of them all are the kids from Ms. They just don't get the attention of the national recruits from other states. Alot of that has to do with small rural towns and Ms just doesn't bring the media attention needed as does Tx, Fl, Ga, Al, Cal and other heavily populated states.
I once was a coach (basketball) at a Mid level school and I can tell you that it really isn't much different in a so called 2 star compared to 3 star and 3 starcompared to a 4 star and so on. With the media ranking us in the mid 30's doesn't mean a damn thing as to what kind of team we will be 3 or 4 years fron now. Again being ranked in the mid 30's ain't all that much different from being in the mid 20's or mid teens.
Hey, I thought Mullen and staff did a good job with recruiting, but reading "some" of the post about us having a sub par class is crazy, how do you know?
Recruiting is important but to say we didn't do good is nuts, relax and hopefully things will be good starting with next year and we can keep building.

 

[Banned Goat]

unless you're talking about needing football players. JUCOs are needs I suppose, and they are that because of mistakes made prior. But by and large recruiting high school guys is about getting the best football players.

Even Mullen shied away from the question about what he 'needs' next year. He just had to make stuff up..."uh, well, we need to go get some tight ends...". You know who answered questions about needs? Croom.

But yeah I think our recruiting class is fine. We got needs and good athletes, however you choose to believe.

 

[bonedaddy401]

unless you're talking about needing football players. JUCOs are needs I suppose, and they are that because of mistakes made prior. But by and large recruiting high school guys is about getting the best football players.

Even Mullen shied away from the question about what he 'needs' next year. He just had to make stuff up..."uh, well, we need to go get some tight ends...". You know who answered questions about needs? Croom.

But yeah I think our recruiting class is fine. We got needs and good athletes, however you choose to believe.

Really? No ****?

 

[RebelBruiser]

Maybe Mississippi recruits don't get as much national attention because there just aren't as many good ones. Mississippi high schools have produced 137 NFL draft picks since 1988. Florida has produced 583. Georgia has produced 306. California has produced 745. Texas has produced 624. Louisiana has produced 251.

Alabama has only produced 178 though.

So, those more heavily populated states will naturally have more 4 and 5 star players, because the depth of the talent in those states is better overall. I agree that we don't know how good a class really is for a few years, but Mississippi prospects are not underrated. According to Rivals, Mississippi had 9 players rated as 4 or 5 stars this year. Florida had 50 players rated as 4 stars or higher.

That's a little over 5 times as many players rated 4 or 5 stars. Of course the numbers show that Florida as a state produces more than 4 times the talent Mississippi does, so it makes sense.

ETA: If you're curious, the state of Alabama had 13 total 4 or 5 star players, which again correlates closely with the percentage of talent that state produces. Mississippi just doesn't produce as much talent as those other states. It's not that the state's players are underrated.

 

[bonedaddy401]

*

 

[Banned Goat]

just makes you look ridiculous. As does pm-ing me about it.

 

[Banned Goat]

population is what counts, at least in the South - let's keep the discussion there because we're all fairly familiar with the demographics. </p>

I think players in MS get underrated for a variety of reasons - many small towns, grades, not as much good coaching. Also because we don't have a 'big boy' university like Florida, Alabama, USC to offer them. Let's face it, those type offers helps you get the stars by your name.

YOU in particular say MS players aren't underrated bc it spins Ole Miss positive and MSU negative. But let's wade through the BS - Nutt AND Mullen are just trying to get the best players possible - they are just saying different things to the media to appease their fans.</p>

 

[basedog]

Hey, i know we need good football players, not only better players like everyone else but we need some linemen which we got. Now can they play, with the right coaching and weight & conditioning coach (which I think we have) we'll see in a few years. Offensive linemen has been by for our weakest position under Croom and now Mullen and staff really improved what we had coming back.
I also know we "needed" to sign QB's, this was the biggest dissapointment to me by signing only one and missing out on a couple of "so call" good players.

</p>

 

[jackstefano]

Those programs are rated higher in the recruiting standings because they recruited better players. You act like all the other programs went out and recruited a bunch of players at non-need positions. That's silly.

 

[DerHntr]

states with more people produce more highly rated recruits. wow. would have never thought that the 18 million people in Florida, the 24 million in Texas, or the nearly 37 million in California could possibly produce more highly rated recruits than the almost 3 million people in Mississippi. silly me.

 

[Banned Goat]

Let's just say there was a Matt Barkley clone from Eupora or something. Do you think MSU and UM wouldn't recruit the guy regardless of their respective QB depth chart?

 

[bonedaddy401]

You are just to easy a target to pass up. Carrying your ignorance from one screen name to another.

 

[windcrysmary]

one would assume that a state's population would give you an idea of the number of h.s. football players there...especially in the south..

in other words, since Fl has over 6 times the population as MS, you would think they have 6 times the number of h.s. football players there

so if the avg football player in Fl is as good as the avg football player in MS, and having a NFL draft status as the measuring stick, FL should have had 822, not 583.... and GA should have had 457 not 306, CA should have had 1690 not 745.., TX should have had 1142 not 624... LA should have 205...but they had 251 so they out percentaged us... AL should have 215 not 178...

but the 4 stars or better between FL and MS are approx 6 times differnce.. something close to equal to the population difference, but when you look at the percentages, a H.S. player from MS is MUCH more likely to make it to the draft than a FL player is....

so what you have here is in MS is a state that from a percentage wise, is higher than FL and GA in terms of the likliehood of getting into the draft... but when you look at the percentage of players that have 4 stars or better they are equal.... which clearly says according to your numbers that MS players are indeed UNDERATED.....

 

[8dog]

d

 

[jackstefano]

for OM because of losses there last year or next year.

 

[Banned Goat]

nm

 

[J-Dawg]

Its hard for MS schools to get every good player from the state. Even if in-state schools got all of these guys, its not even going to be close to the talent coming out of FL, TX, CA etc. It doesn't help that MS is dead last in education and not much money goes into HS athletics. Just compare the top MS HS football stadiums to those in FL or TX. It's no where close. I guess you could argue that MS produces a decent amount of NFL players given the total population. I mean, arguably the best NFL QB (Favre), RB (Payton), and the best WR (Rice) come from inside MS, from small schools, and where not really recruited going into college. I like the fact that Mullen wants to take the time and evaluate the Hill's/Carr's etc from small schools, because you don't want to overlook the "diamond in the rough" types.

/Bear with me if that didn't make sense
//Lost my train of thought halfway thru.

 

[Xartox]

I guess some can't let facts get in the way of them being right or wrong though.

 

[8dog]

and mullen didn't shy away from need. he detailed exactly why OLine will be an emphasis next year also.

 

[Banned Goat]

nm

 

[Banned Goat]

and it was much more realistic. I've quoted Gene Stallings 100 times, "You need a QB, a center and the best football players you can find." I don't think he meant it to say get 23 other QBs. But you don't pass on a 4* OL in your backyard just because you think you'll need a CB in two years, for the last spot in your class.

 

[Lion O]

Its awful early for someone to be so drunk.

 

[holeflow]

you really believe the people at scout and rivals are evaluating every high-school football player in the state of mississippi? or do they look at the larger metro schools and the guys who make it out to their local camp/combines? i'm betting its the latter.

when its all said and done - recruiting comes down to who is playing in a bowl and who is spending time with family at christmas. that goes for the state of MS or CA, TX, FL, GA, etc.

 

[bonedaddy401]

people weren't so easy to get a rise out of. You actually had to work to get under someone's skin. And no Grove Hard didn't get one. Telling you the internet is not your friend got to you? Damn mantoughenup a little bit, make it fun at least.

 

[DowntownDawg]

..."the per capita" is key.

 

[windcrysmary]

which is the approx population difference between the 2 states...

but based on the numbers, FL should have no way near the percentage of 4-5 star recuits over MS based on the percentage of players that make it from MS vs FL...

that is a clear indication that MS players are indeed underated...

 

[maroonmania]

How do we know the percentage of HS students who participate in football in FL vs. MS. Whether a high school has 300 students or 3000 students you still only have one football team and relatively the same number who go out for football in those schools. I bet if you don't PLAY HS football you are MUCH less likely to play in college and the NFL than those that do. In fact, I would think that a rural state like MS would have a lot larger percentage of kids who play sports from a young age than a more populated state like FL where there are a million other things to get involved in. Now I do agree that those in a state like FL that DO play HS ball come out more ready to play college due to the level of competition and the additional facilities and coaching that those states can provide. But all that means is there may in fact be more undeveloped potential from a kid in MS it just may take a redshirt season or two to see it.

 

[patdog]

I'm pretty sure that pretty much all of the kids who are good enough to eventually play in the NFL are going to be good enough to play for their high school team no matter if their high school has 100 students or 5,000 students.

 

[windcrysmary]

lot harder to make a team when the h.s. has 2,000 vs 500....

 

[RebelBruiser]

which is the approx population difference between the 2 states...

but based on the numbers, FL should have no way near the percentage of 4-5 star recuits over MS based on the percentage of players that make it from MS vs FL...

that is a clear indication that MS players are indeed underated...

You want me to throw you some numbers that may baffle you. Texas had 49 players who were 4 or 5 stars this year. California had 48. Shouldn't Texas and California have more 4 and 5 stars than Florida?

On a given year though, it's not going to be exact. Some years are going to be better than others. My point was that in comparison to the states listed, Mississippi is in the range of where it should be.

You're talking about a difference of two or three 4 or 5 star rated players in a given class and trying to say Mississippi is underrated based purely on numbers I gave you from one website and in relation to one state (Florida). I'm telling you, it's within a fairly close range to what you would expect. If Mississippi's blue chip recruit number was perfectly correlated with Florida's given history, we'd have 11 or 12 blue chips in this class, as opposed to 9. You're talking about a difference of 2 or 3 recruits on one recruiting scale.

Over the years, California has produced almost 5.5 times as many NFL draft picks as Mississippi. Ironically, this year, they have just under 5.5 times the blue chips that Mississippi does (49/9). If you use Mississippi's numbers in comparison to Texas, you'd say Mississippi should have 10 or 11 blue chips. If you do it in relation to Alabama, you'd say Mississippi needed 10 blue chips this year.

Georgia had 30 blue chips this year in-state. If you do the same for the state of Georgia, you'd say Mississippi should've had 13 blue chips. Louisiana had 11 blue chips this year. If you do that comparison for Louisiana, you'd say Mississippi should've had 6 blue chips.

Point being, you're not talking about a major difference here, and it's one recruiting site for one year. I'd say 9 or 10, maybe 11 is within the range of the number of blue chips you'd expect by percentage given the historical NFL draft numbers.

And the bigger point in all of this is that "per capita" doesn't matter. Until they start giving Ole Miss and MSU a per capita score adjustment on the scoreboard, population numbers don't matter one bit. What matters is how much talent a given state produces, and Mississippi doesn't produce enough to say that the talent here is significantly underrated.

 

[RebelBruiser]

you really believe the people at scout and rivals are evaluating every high-school football player in the state of mississippi? or do they look at the larger metro schools and the guys who make it out to their local camp/combines? i'm betting its the latter.

when its all said and done - recruiting comes down to who is playing in a bowl and who is spending time with family at christmas. that goes for the state of MS or CA, TX, FL, GA, etc.

I'd say the recruiting websites do the same for all states. There are small school guys in every state that don't get the exposure. It's not just Mississippi. The point of my original post was to show that based purely on the number of players rated 4 or 5 stars in the state, not including Jucos, the players in Mississippi are rated within the range that you'd expect given the way other states are rated.

 

[DerHntr]

I think I am starting to see where you are getting confused with the other folks in this thread concerning the numbers and the idea of being underrated.

this is what you said in your original post:

Maybe Mississippi recruits don't get as much national attention because there just aren't as many good ones.

now you are explaining your numbers with this:

The point of my original post was to show that based purely on the
number of players rated 4 or 5 stars in the state, not including Jucos,
the players in Mississippi are rated within the range that you'd expect
given the way other states are rated.

What has been argued against your logic is that there are more players in the NFL from MS per capita. If this is the case then one could expect Mississippi to also have a disproportionate number of 4 or 5 star players each year. Instead, as stated by you, Mississippi falls within a general range of the number of 4 or 5 star recruits each year when considering population. Therefore, others are arguing that this means some players in MS are not being rated correctly (i.e. underrated).

The main point of all of this is you can't point to population numbers to make your argument for the number of 4 or 5 star recruits and then disregard it when considering those that make it in the NFL.

 

[windcrysmary]

has 6 times the number of 4-5 star ratings and that doesn't mean anything...

right

 

[RebelBruiser]

It's one class, and I showed that there is a discrepency with multiple states. Given the numbers for multiple states, the most you could argue is that Mississippi should have had maybe one or two more 4 or 5 star players.

In a given year, you aren't going to have more than 10 or so true blue chip type players from Mississippi, and that's in a good year. It's not that the state is underrated. It's that the state just doesn't produce more talent than that.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I think I am starting to see where you are getting confused with the other folks in this thread concerning the numbers and the idea of being underrated.

this is what you said in your original post:

Maybe Mississippi recruits don't get as much national attention because there just aren't as many good ones.

now you are explaining your numbers with this:

The point of my original post was to show that based purely on the
number of players rated 4 or 5 stars in the state, not including Jucos,
the players in Mississippi are rated within the range that you'd expect
given the way other states are rated.

What has been argued against your logic is that there are more players in the NFL from MS per capita. If this is the case then one could expect Mississippi to also have a disproportionate number of 4 or 5 star players each year. Instead, as stated by you, Mississippi falls within a general range of the number of 4 or 5 star recruits each year when considering population. Therefore, others are arguing that this means some players in MS are not being rated correctly (i.e. underrated).

The main point of all of this is you can't point to population numbers to make your argument for the number of 4 or 5 star recruits and then disregard it when considering those that make it in the NFL.

No, I am using NFL numbers to say that by percentage of NFL draft picks, Mississippi is getting what you'd expect. The number of blue chips from Mississippi should hover around the 8-12 range most years.

And again, I didn't point to population numbers. I pointed to NFL draft numbers. I never once have said anything about population. The only thing I've mentioned is that based on those draft numbers (see again: NOT POPULATION), this year's number of blue chips falls within a close range of what you'd expect in terms of blue chips in comparison to other states. Florida is higher than you'd expect this year. Louisiana is lower than you'd expect this year. The others are all within a close range mirroring the amount of players each state produces to the NFL.

 

[windcrysmary]

tell you that you that 2 kids with equal talent, the one playing in Miami, Atlanta or Dallas is going to have an easier climb to 4 star status than one from Greenville or Grenada....

 

[DerHntr]

I never once have said anything about population.

original post you made

So, those more heavily<span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;"> populated </span>states will naturally have more 4 and
5 star players, because the depth of the talent in those states is
better overall. I agree that we don't know how good a class really is
for a few years, but Mississippi prospects are not underrated.
According to Rivals, Mississippi had 9 players rated as 4 or 5 stars
this year. Florida had 50 players rated as 4 stars or higher.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I never once have said anything about population.

original post you made

So, those more heavily<span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold;"> populated </span>states will naturally have more 4 and
5 star players, because the depth of the talent in those states is
better overall. I agree that we don't know how good a class really is
for a few years, but Mississippi prospects are not underrated.
According to Rivals, Mississippi had 9 players rated as 4 or 5 stars
this year. Florida had 50 players rated as 4 stars or higher.

But again, my numbers have nothing to do with population.

Naturally, a state 6 times the size of Mississippi will produce more prospects, even if it's only 4 times the number of prospects. And my numbers come from NFL draft numbers, that DON'T factor in population.