So ESPN's SEC blog gives us a C+?

[msu4life07]

I know ESPN's recruiting rankings are ****, but I at least expected Chris Low to give his own opinion. C+ is the lowest he gave any of the teams - tying us with Arkansas, Kentucky, and Ole Miss. I know its really irrelevant, but it still makes me scratch my head and wonder what they are thinking.

#18 nationally on one site and C+ on another - that's a big difference. BTW, I know our class was really good.

 

[patdog]

#18 nationally on one site and C+ on another - that's a big difference.

The guys giving those rankings at any of those sites don't know a bit more about football than I do. The only difference is I know, and everyone else knows, that I'm not qualified to rank high school football recruits. I really don't give a **** about what either of those two sites thinks about our class. All I know is we're going to win games with this class.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...which fanbase is least likely to send him hate mail & death threats.


If he gave Bama, LSU, Georgia & Florida a C+ he would have to live with the hate mail & death threats.


If he gives MSU and our conference equals a C+ then he knows he doesn't have to put the FBI on speed dial.


In other words, this is all popularity & gossip fluff. It has no anchor in reality.

 

[TBone.sixpack]

Passed that their coverage sucks. They cater to the masses and those four I notedhave the Sidewalk Nation.</p>

 

[thf24]

as is just about everything on ESPN. They don't care what the facts are, they only care what they want them to be.

 

[maroonmania]

most of us believe this is Mullen's best class only rivaled by the transition class he signed in 2009. Interesting that the opinion on our class ranges from 18th in the nation on Scout (last I checked) to 13th out of the 14 teams in the SEC by ESPN and others. I mean heck when is the last time we signed 2 legitimate 5 star caliber players (Evans and Autry)?

 

[17thebears]

Wrong name conspiracy

 

[seshomoru]

He'd be fired because nobody would be reading.

 

[EAVdog]

Had to write something.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

There has to be some way of evaluating the recruiting rankings and methods. When ESPN, Scouts, Rivals, etc. give a player a certain number of points, find out how much that score correlates with their performance in college. So if you give a guy 5* and make him worth 500 points and another guy 2* and 50 points, five years later you should be able to determine if the rankings and points were accurately given.<div>
</div><div>Of course, your evaluation method after their college career is done is just as subjective as the initial recruiting methods. I would do it by ignoring almost all stats and simply looking at their participation rates and the team win/loss record, perhaps scaling the value of a win or loss to the particular opponent. But that may yield incredibly bad data too. Who knows?</div>

 

[sleepy dawg]

Somewhere between 18th and C+. This really is a perfect example of how no one knows anything when it comes to recruiting. You can't know anything... Unless you've seen all these kids play, then you can't accurately rank any of them.

These so called experts are trying to evaluate hundreds to thousands of kids (depending on who they work for). The guys who are evaluating hundreds are leaving out thousands in their comparisons. And there is no way the people who are evaluating thousands have anywhere near the information they need to accurately do so.

This is why it's pointless to get <span style="font-style: italic;">up in arms</span> about what these sites say. The truth is, you will agree with whoever has us ranked the highest, and bash whoever has us ranked the lowest.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

There has to be some way of evaluating the recruiting rankings and methods. When ESPN, Scouts, Rivals, etc. give a player a certain number of points, find out how much that score correlates with their performance in college. So if you give a guy 5* and make him worth 500 points and another guy 2* and 50 points, five years later you should be able to determine if the rankings and points were accurately given.<div>
</div><div>Of course, your evaluation method after their college career is done is just as subjective as the initial recruiting methods. I would do it by ignoring almost all stats and simply looking at their participation rates and the team win/loss record, perhaps scaling the value of a win or loss to the particular opponent. But that may yield incredibly bad data too. Who knows?</div>

just go look at the lsu, bama, usc, ohio st, texas, etc. success over mostofthe last 10 or so years since the national recruiting following really started up. are all 5* recruits going to be studs? no. are all 2* guys going to be crap? no. are 5* guys more likely to be BCS conference starting caliber players, all-conference, and all-american players than 2* guys? yes. <div>
</div><div>there are going to be guys that come out of nowhere to be stars and guys that are busts after being 5* recruits, but at the end of the day, i'd take a squad of 5* guys and see how they pan out over 4 years over a squad of 2* guys over 4 years. i'd take 5* over 4*, and 4* over 3*, etc etc etc. does that mean it always plays out that way? no. does it usually play out that way? yes. so let's not act like the rankings mean nothing. on the individual level they mean a little bit, but can fluctuate as guys develop and depending on the system and the PT etc. but on the bigger picture, the schools signing the highest ranked classes also correspond with the schools consistently competing for BCS bowls and championships and 10+ W seasons so...</div>