Something unusual about this year's...

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...commitment list:

Neither the scout.com nor the rivals.com list has a single MSU commitment under 3 stars.

I realize star rankings are inaccurate measuring sticks, but damn.

When was the last time MSU had this many commitments @ Christmas time & not a single commitment is under 3 stars? You would have to go way back.

</a><a rel="nofollow" href="http://mississippistate.scout.com/a.z?s=136&p=9&c=8&yr=2009">http://mississippistate.s...p;p=9&c=8&yr=2009

</a><a rel="nofollow" href="http://mississippistate.rivals.com/commitlist.asp">http://mississippistate.rivals.com/commitlist.asp

Props to both Croom & Mullen for making this happen.

This is an unusual phenomena in the annuals of modern day Miss. State football recruiting.

(Now feel free to expound upon how it can all fall apart at any given moment. And yes, I realize this is still a "lower tier" recruiting class compared to the other SEC classes, but that's not my point).

 

[TBonewannabe]

We are actually fighting SEC and Big 12 schools for recruits instead of Sun belt and MAC. With all the crap people talk about star rankings, they are pretty accurate on what kind of talent you get. That is only half of it, you still have to coach them.

 

[Harry Truax Jr.nafoom]

OVERALL, in general the star system is a good indicator of the talent you're taking in. Look at O's stars and Croom's stars, and the progression of the teams during those periods. The big boys who have all the 5 stars have the big programs. That's how it is, regardless of Mr. Joe Fan of a not so good recruiting school aka Bruiser who says the recruiting rankings are ****.

There are exceptions, especially for specific players who may or may not get exposure, but on the whole, the rankings tell you who is recruiting better.

 

[KurtRambis4]

RonnyAtmosphere wrote:

When was the last time MSU had this many commitments @ Christmas time & not a single commitment is under 3 stars

check the archive....

 

[klipdawg]

I caught myself looking up some recruit this morning and thinking... ahh, he's only a 3 star. In years past, it would have been... alright, he's actually ranked and he's a 3 star. Change is near.

 

[4suredog]

I don't think the stars are the end-all be all of the process. They are very good indications though. You also have to look at who the player is competing against. If you step back, lets say a 3 star playing in 6a florida, how does he compare to 5 star playing 2a in Mississippi if they play the same position? Thats when the coaches ability to evaluate is the biggest issue. The stars in my opinion are really more of a huge guess based on potential than reality because of what they have been matched against....

 

[99jc]

indicated there were more 2-3 star players in the NFL than 4-5. just thought that was insightful.

 

[Bob Sacamano.sixpack]

Of course that would be the case since there are only a handful of 4 & 5 stars compared to 2 & 3 stars. If the study was based on a percentage of those rankings making the NFL, then that would be a better indicator.

 

[MissStateDog]

indicated there were more 2-3 star players in the NFL than 4-5. just thought that was insightful.

You do know there ARE more 2-3 star players than 4-5 star players. There are probably, just guessing, around 150 4-5 star players and 500+ (possibly way more) 2-3 star players per year.</p>

 

[seshomoru]

indicated there were more 2-3 star players in the NFL than 4-5. just thought that was insightful.

Or logical, since there are a ton more 2-3 star rated players than 4-5 star rated players.

// Boom goes the stick of logic dynamite apparently

 

[jfs131]

Yeah I say if they are a three star or higher they are a solid player and has alot of potential. Overall I don't rate them by their stars. I look at their high school stats and clips to rate em and how fast their 40s are, etc.

 

[Todd4State]

is that for some reason, if you play JUCO, you are automatically a three star player. Heck, Tyson Lee with no offers was a four star player. Which leads me to my next gripe- who are the people rating these guys? If it's people like Gene, well, I would say that the system is VERY flawed. If they had ex-coaches, even if it is high school coaches, I would place a little more merit with the system.

And the system is very biased when it comes to "big schools". For example, if you play at Madison Central, chances are you are going to be rated higher than you would if you played at Ethel.

The system has some merit, but I still say that it needs to be shored up.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

RonnyAtmosphere wrote:

When was the last time MSU had this many commitments @ Christmas time & not a single commitment is under 3 stars

check the archive....

As much as your ignorant ******** is stored in there, I would lay off demanding the archives be opened.