Toggle sidebar

Remembering the Epic Recruiting Meltdown of 2011

E

engie

Freshman
May 29, 2011
10,756
92
48
Seshomoru said:
Wins?
Click to expand...

May be possible with some appropriate "weighting" of each individual class... for instance, a true freshman class doesn't deserve the same credit for a good season as a 4th year class... But what would those percentages need to be?
 
U

UpTheMiddlex3Punt

All-Conference
May 28, 2007
17,962
3,963
113
Just take the original ranking, multiply by the number of years they were there, and divide by the total number of years they can be there (2 for JC, 4 for HS, whatever for transfers). Count the guy as being there the whole time if he's drafted. This way a 5* who never sniffs campus gets reassessed as 0* whereas a 2* who sticks around for 4 years is a 2* still.

It's simple, doesn't require reassessing players, and I'm betting it will yield results closer to actual win% rankings.
 
seshomoru

seshomoru

Junior
Apr 24, 2006
5,599
282
83
Hmmm...

I see MSU has won a good bit more games than Ole Miss over the last few years.

They really must be recruiting better, then.

Must be.

Probably some better coaching, too, I would assume.

Agreed. They're getting better players and have better coaching.

So that settles it, then?

Well, I really wish there was somebody I could give money to and have them tell me how good the recruits are before they even spend one second with a college coaching staff.

I agree, let's get on the internet where all information is reliable and accurate.

Good idea! And look! There are three places that you can pay to see how good your football team is recruiting!

And it's broken down into a simple star system. How easy to understand!

Wait a second, who is rating these high school kids that haven't had one second with a college coaching staff?

A couple of guys who don't coach football but have laptops and cameras.

Sounds like an impressive system!

I know right. Let's buy all three and see if our team will be any good because there really is no way to evaluate how good your team is without star ratings that try to predict future performance.

Exactly. Hey, who won the Egg Bowl?

Probably Ole Miss. Look at their last few recruiting classes.

Wow! They must be awesome!
 
TheStateUofMS

TheStateUofMS

All-Conference
Dec 26, 2009
10,308
2,341
113
I actually heard a recruiting "ANALyst" explain why it's a good measure.

Take MIZZ. They have averaged in the mid 30s right? It's clear they evaluated and developed the guys they recruited pretty well, and this year they had a break out year. Well, look at last year when they had some key injuries on the DL, OL, and lost a RB. Also, their QB wasn't that healthy. What am I trying to say? They didn't have a lot of depth. Now, you recruit in the top 10 according to the rankings or sign a lot of 4 and 5 star guys. You lose your starters to injuries, so you're back ups have to fill in. It's more likely 4 star backups will be able to fill in with not much of a drop off than a 3 or 2star guy. Especially in the SEC. That's the best answer I've heard yet. The stars can't rank heart, drive, work ethic, etc. and that's what the coaches have to decide on, but these recruiting sites can take film on a guy, and tell whether or not he's a gifted athlete. If he's a gifted athlete, he's probably going to be a 4 or 5star or a highly rated 3 star.

With all that said, it's not an exact science. I think Dan has done a good job recruiting and developing talent and find "diamonds in the rough." Being in MS, and mainly recruiting MS and surrounding rural states, guys are going to get over looked and probably not be ranked as high. Being able to RS can help fill the void of the star gap, and MSU and MIZZ have done a good job of that. The past two years we have signed good classes and true and RS FR have been hitting the field and playing well for us in key spots.

Bottom line, depth is where the star rankings will really take shape. I'll take a class of 18 ESPN 300 commits (Bama has this currently) than a class with 7 ESPN 300 and 15 3 stars any day. They both will be good classes and the two deep may not look that much different if the lower ranked class gets to RS a lot of guys and develop them to the highest degree. But if the lower rated class gets hit with injuries, guys might not be able to red shirt and develop before they are thrown into the fire. The odds are that class won't have the skill to fill players in without drop off in talent level.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
jakldawg

jakldawg

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
4,374
0
36
to sum up:

 
horshack.sixpack

horshack.sixpack

All-American
Oct 30, 2012
11,364
8,276
113
a few ideas...

total number of starts by members of the class divided by number of wins during length of time the class had players active

total number of defensive starts divided by total points against during class tenure

total number of offensive starts divided by total points scored during class tenure

all are just ratios that might give an objective look at the actual on the field contribution of recruiting class members. It would naturally account for those who fell out or didn't perform well enough to start. It would only be useful in class to class comparison.
 
Maroon Eagle

Maroon Eagle

All-American
May 24, 2006
17,999
7,815
102
I don't know if that's accurate saying that we gave CJ's spot to Zach Jackson considering Jackson was a Dandy Dozen and early commitment and that C.J. bulked up to be DE at Ole Miss. Maybe Johnson would have bulked up at MSU too.

Just a thought.
 
R

RebelAlumnus

Heisman
Jul 9, 2013
18,946
46,689
113
You can't go entirely on recruiting rankings either way. Look at AU, 0-8 with Chizik, SEC West Champs with Malzahn, with essentially the same players. A lot of it is coaching, a lot of it is talented depth.


Exactly. Hey, who won the Egg Bowl?
Click to expand...

Going off of one game does nothing to assess talent of a team. I don't think anyone would say Auburn is more talented than Alabama this year, but they beat them head to head. Same for Ole Miss beating LSU this year. Same for Jacksonville State beating Ole Miss a few years ago. Anyone can win one game, looking at a trend is most important.


And yes, I know this was somewhat satirical.
 
coach66

coach66

Junior
Mar 5, 2009
12,691
312
83
Coaches earn their money, they are the difference makers. If you can get solid

talent not necessarily top ranked talent and have the ability to develop, motivate, and put them in the best position to win then you can have a successful program. A bad coach can't win consistently with average talent but a great coach can.
 
E

engie

Freshman
May 29, 2011
10,756
92
48
Maroon Eagle said:
I don't know if that's accurate saying that we gave CJ's spot to Zach Jackson considering Jackson was a Dandy Dozen and early commitment and that C.J. bulked up to be DE at Ole Miss. Maybe Johnson would have bulked up at MSU too.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I am wrong on the part about Jackson. We took Jackson's commitment very early in the process. Had a total brain fart on that one. For some reason, I thought we filled CJ's "spot" -- when we really didn't. Not sure about how to edit an already-published article with my clearances there. I guess I need to talk to Croom Diaries about that part...

CJ would have stayed at LB at MSU... Freeze moves a ton of LBs down(wants to do the same with Gerri Green) -- in favor of smaller, quicker defenses. We've kept ours big.

Either way -- McKinney was a huge jewel of that class in roughly the same position...

Having CJ would have still been great -- because it would have allowed us to be even more multiple than we are now with the same personnel groupings on the field. Hybrid players are going to be the key to defeating the hurry up offense and turning it into a "trend" in the longterm IMO. The main advantage it gives is getting you in matchup weaknesses -- and locking personnel on the field to exploit those weaknesses and create confusion. If you've got guys like CJ and Gerri Green that can be a DE one play and OLB the next -- and guys like Matt Wells that can be a LB at times, S at times, and play in coverage at nickel -- and guys like Chris Jones that can play 3-4 nose guard on one play and then come at the QB from DE in a 4-3 on the next -- you can erase the advantages of the hurry up and essentially kill most mismatches by creating confusion for the very offense that's seeking to do that to you...
 
Last edited:
E

esplanade91

Redshirt
Dec 9, 2010
5,656
0
0
I don't know that Zach "replaced" him, but CJ was being brought in to play MLB almost immediately. I don't think he would have bulked up at MSU, where we had a boat load of DL depth. Zach could have bulked up and played LB. He's a pretty large safety. He didn't end up being that guy, but we ended up piecing a LB corp together over the last couple of seasons regardless.
 
aTotal360

aTotal360

Heisman
Nov 12, 2009
21,767
14,434
113
I agree. USCw should have never fell off the map (even with probation) if recruiting meant everything.
 
C

CookieMonster.sixpack

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2012
2,761
1
31
I would generally agree...

TheStateUofMS said:
I actually heard a recruiting "ANALyst" explain why it's a good measure.

Take MIZZ. They have averaged in the mid 30s right? It's clear they evaluated and developed the guys they recruited pretty well, and this year they had a break out year. Well, look at last year when they had some key injuries on the DL, OL, and lost a RB. Also, their QB wasn't that healthy. What am I trying to say? They didn't have a lot of depth. Now, you recruit in the top 10 according to the rankings or sign a lot of 4 and 5 star guys. You lose your starters to injuries, so you're back ups have to fill in. It's more likely 4 star backups will be able to fill in with not much of a drop off than a 3 or 2star guy. Especially in the SEC. That's the best answer I've heard yet. The stars can't rank heart, drive, work ethic, etc. and that's what the coaches have to decide on, but these recruiting sites can take film on a guy, and tell whether or not he's a gifted athlete. If he's a gifted athlete, he's probably going to be a 4 or 5star or a highly rated 3 star.

With all that said, it's not an exact science. I think Dan has done a good job recruiting and developing talent and find "diamonds in the rough." Being in MS, and mainly recruiting MS and surrounding rural states, guys are going to get over looked and probably not be ranked as high. Being able to RS can help fill the void of the star gap, and MSU and MIZZ have done a good job of that. The past two years we have signed good classes and true and RS FR have been hitting the field and playing well for us in key spots.

Bottom line, depth is where the star rankings will really take shape. I'll take a class of 18 ESPN 300 commits (Bama has this currently) than a class with 7 ESPN 300 and 15 3 stars any day. They both will be good classes and the two deep may not look that much different if the lower ranked class gets to RS a lot of guys and develop them to the highest degree. But if the lower rated class gets hit with injuries, guys might not be able to red shirt and develop before they are thrown into the fire. The odds are that class won't have the skill to fill players in without drop off in talent level.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

But Florida this year seems to say otherwise. They've recruited well and when hit with injuries just fell apart.
 
L

Lildoggy

Redshirt
Aug 21, 2012
80
0
0
Whoever wrote that article is a 17n idiot. A lot of stuff is just wrong and over exaggerated to create an article.

Anyway, any debate about that class begins and ends with this...WE got Dak THEY got Zack. Nothing else matters. We win.

17 Ole Miss
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.