POLL: "The Skewl Up North..."
- Thread starter TR.sixpack
- Start date
Wow. You're kidding, right?
Over the past 6 seasons, LSU and Florida have each won TWO NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. Florida won it last year. That's what 4- and 5-star recruits get you.
Are you claiming UM had a better team than UF last year? Was Vandy a better team than UM last year?
I do actually agree that recruiting is not everything, and that games are won on the field. We were saying the same thing in 2007 (and UM fans were saying then what I am saying now). But is it a coincidence that your best team in many years came 3 years after Orgeron's best recruiting class? Your two best players, Oher and Snead, were 5-star and 4-star recruits.
Some UM (and MSU) fans have been saying that we don't have any SEC-quality players. I recently have been using the star rankings and recruiting rankings just to point out that State does have some talent on the field and some on the way. I used it on this thread just to demonstrate that we are not some insignificant team that UM and Nutt can ignore. If UM underestimates us, then MSU will continue to outwork UM and get the best recruits from Mississippi, and soon State have a team of better players.
Also, many UM (and MSU) fans have pointed to "45-0" as a measure of each team's strength. However, last season we were not 45-0 bad (and UM was not 45-0 good). UM had 11 sacks in the Egg Bowl but did not get more than 4 sacks in any other game. While MSU had given up a lot of sacks over the season, State had only one other game giving up more than 4 (5 at UT). Therefore, our OL is not 45-0 bad. Prior to the Egg Bowl, State's defense was ranked #27 nationally and UM's was #30. Our defense is also not 45-0 bad. State was just a FG kicker from going to a bowl. We have that now. Over the past several years, we had a #100+ offense, and were just a medium-bad offense from winning several more games. We have at least that now.
You **** for brains. Exactly what years did we have better recruiting classes? I remember 2000 and 2001 being a highly recruited classes. Other than those, what classes are you talking about?
The rivals ranking is based on the multiplier, which is star average....OM losing 3 and 2 star players to attrition actually increases the star average for the class, thereby improving the ranking overall and certainly compared to other teams w/ attrition who do not have 20 players of sufficient position rankings to even maintain their rivals points.
The re-ranking, barring the rest (really even just 1 of the 3, could afford to lose at least two 4 stars) of the blue chippers making it will only increase the disparity between OM and MSU in recruiting......not that it matters that much anyway. One of the best empirical evaluators (Sagarin) had OM as the 11th best team in the country last season, while MSU was 90th. That, more than anything else, demonstrates the true present situations of the two schools.
The re-ranking, barring the rest (really even just 1 of the 3, could afford to lose at least two 4 stars) of the blue chippers making it will only increase the disparity between OM and MSU in recruiting......not that it matters that much anyway. One of the best empirical evaluators (Sagarin) had OM as the 11th best team in the country last season, while MSU was 90th. That, more than anything else, demonstrates the true present situations of the two schools.
Don't know about rivals, but OM will clearly drop in scout.com's re-ranking. They count the top 25, and NONE of OM's top 25 were 2-stars. Many of those not making it in for the Rebels are 3- and 4-star players, and they will be replaced by 2-star recruits. Ole Miss' re-ranking will clearly worsen. You're right in that it doesn't matter that much, but OM will likely drop out of the top 20, maybe out of the top 25. On the other hand, MSU's ranking can only get better because State's Top 25 included some 2-star players, and all 3 players that aren't going to make it are 2-star players.AceD3 said:
Actually, if you buy the rankings (I don't), we have 5 players rated as 4 or 5 stars on scout. 3 of them are already on campus, and the other two are both expected to report without any problems for the fall, so we won't lose any "blue chips" from our class according to scout.
The 6 players that we definitely will lose (all 3 stars on scout) are Montez Phillips (29), Stephen Houston (27), Artice Kellam (15), Demarcus Knight (14), Eric Smiley (12), and Willie Ferrell (7).
And again, we all know how important those recruiting rankings are. For the poster that referenced Oher and Snead. Yes, they were both highly rated recruits, which is nice, but we had 3 first day draft picks last year. Oher was a 5 star. Peria Jerry was a 2 star coming out of high school. Mike Wallace was a 2 star coming out of high school.
Of our top returning players, Greg Hardy was a 3 star, Dexter McCluster was a 3 star, Brandon Bolden was a 3 star, Shay Hodge was a 2 star, Daverin Geralds was a 3 star, John Jerry was a 3 star out of high school, Kendrick Lewis was a 3 star, Lawon Scott was a 2 star. I could go on. Sure we have guys like Allen Walker, Jonathan Cornell, Patrick Trahan, Jerrell Powe, Ted Laurent, Cordera Eason, Marcus Tillman, and Kentrell Lockett that were 4 and 5 star players, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the second group is any better than the first group or any more important to the team's success.
I still don't see how people get so worked up about recruiting rankings. Florida and LSU are good because they recruit good players, not because they recruit highly ranked players. The states of Florida and Louisiana are stacked with talent (real talent, not just star ratings), and those schools benefit from having a competitive advantage in getting the best they can find in those states. Nick Saban recruits well at Alabama. He recruits well because he's good at evaluating talent and bringing it in. His recruits are rated highly, not because they are talented, but because he recruits them, and the websites respect his opinion, and they know he's going to win. Therefore, they rate the players he recruits highly to help justify their system.
The 6 players that we definitely will lose (all 3 stars on scout) are Montez Phillips (29), Stephen Houston (27), Artice Kellam (15), Demarcus Knight (14), Eric Smiley (12), and Willie Ferrell (7).
And again, we all know how important those recruiting rankings are. For the poster that referenced Oher and Snead. Yes, they were both highly rated recruits, which is nice, but we had 3 first day draft picks last year. Oher was a 5 star. Peria Jerry was a 2 star coming out of high school. Mike Wallace was a 2 star coming out of high school.
Of our top returning players, Greg Hardy was a 3 star, Dexter McCluster was a 3 star, Brandon Bolden was a 3 star, Shay Hodge was a 2 star, Daverin Geralds was a 3 star, John Jerry was a 3 star out of high school, Kendrick Lewis was a 3 star, Lawon Scott was a 2 star. I could go on. Sure we have guys like Allen Walker, Jonathan Cornell, Patrick Trahan, Jerrell Powe, Ted Laurent, Cordera Eason, Marcus Tillman, and Kentrell Lockett that were 4 and 5 star players, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the second group is any better than the first group or any more important to the team's success.
I still don't see how people get so worked up about recruiting rankings. Florida and LSU are good because they recruit good players, not because they recruit highly ranked players. The states of Florida and Louisiana are stacked with talent (real talent, not just star ratings), and those schools benefit from having a competitive advantage in getting the best they can find in those states. Nick Saban recruits well at Alabama. He recruits well because he's good at evaluating talent and bringing it in. His recruits are rated highly, not because they are talented, but because he recruits them, and the websites respect his opinion, and they know he's going to win. Therefore, they rate the players he recruits highly to help justify their system.