• Help Support TNDeer:

My thoughts on recruiting... still

EastTNHunter

EastTNHunter

Well-Known Member
TNDeer Supporter
2-Step Enabled
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
10,248
Reaction score
6,298
Location
Rhea Co., TN
Most of you know that I'm a big UGA DAWGS fan. They're having a pretty good recruiting cycle this go around, but I'm going to say again what I said a couple of years back when UT was in the running for the mythical "recruiting title" for a couple years in a row. People gave me flack then, and they will likely give me flack now, but here goes:

Recruiting is a highly inexact science, further convoluted by recruiting services who have a lot to gain by hype. It is VERY difficult to evaluate talent across such a wide section of geography, with such disparate talent levels on every level, among kids who mature mentally and physically at different rates. Some kids come in as a 5 star talent, but don't develop appropriately due to poor coaching or because they have already "peaked out." Many also come in as 4-5 stars that are overvaluated due to many factors. Others come in who are rated 2-3 stars, but become superstars due to being late bloomers, good coaching, hard work ethic, great intelligence, or being under evaluated due to the program that they are in, or a combination of any of those.

David Pollack was signed as a 2-3 star fullback, but became one of the greatest linemen to ever play for UGA. Keith Marshall was a 5 star tailback that had a very good career for UGA, but was overshadowed by a low 4-star tailback named Todd Gurley. UGAs current defensive backfield, although not the best in college football, has a 4-year starter who came in as a 3 star, and a former walk on who is a 3-year starter.

My point is, these are 17-18 year old kids that I hear full grown men get wrapped all around the axle about. We don't need to give them so much hype, but then wonder why they act like fools sometimes. Their brains aren't even fully developed, but we idolize them before they have even done anything. Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program, and its more likely that a high-star rated kid will become more of a contributor than a low-star rated kid, but the game gets played on the field.
 
This is no place for sound, rational thinking :) !


full grown men get wrapped all around the axle about This has always baffled me as well. I mean, some will even argue about which recruiting service is better :shock: !
 
The individual recruits rankings rarely matter. However the average of a recruiting class or recruiting rankings certainly makes a difference.

Since 1996 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title.

Here's the breakdown by team through 2016:
https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/want ... es-020316/

In 2017 The top 10 were:
Alabama
Oh State
GA
USC
Michigan
FL State
LSU
Oklahoma
Auburn
Notre Dame
 
I'm not going to argue about the importance of recruiting, but the "science" of it is not exact. How can we prove that UGAs class is any better than OSUs? Also, your argument could also speak to the development of talent performed by several of these teams compared to others, as multiple top 10 classes is not a guarantee of any success.

My biggest beef is with the man stalkers, many of which are making threats or condescending comments to these kids about their college selection. Some of these even came from coaches.
 
EastTNHunter":3tkd2e9b said:
I'm not going to argue about the importance of recruiting, but the "science" of it is not exact. How can we prove that UGAs class is any better than OSUs? Also, your argument could also speak to the development of talent performed by several of these teams compared to others, as multiple top 10 classes is not a guarantee of any success.

My biggest beef is with the man stalkers, many of which are making threats or condescending comments to these kids about their college selection. Some of these even came from coaches.
Click to expand...

You don't have to prove that an individual player is better than another or even that an individual recruiting class at the University of XXXX is better than the recruiting class at the University of YYYY. It is an indisputable fact that Since 1996 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before they won it.

You are overthinking this nonsense. It isn't science, its simple statistics.
If College football was a card game, you stand a better chance of winning the game if you start off with Aces, Kings and Queens as opposed to Deuecs Threes and and Fours.
 
BamaProud":3m1fhrv3 said:
If College football was a card game, you stand a better chance of winning the game if you start off with Aces, Kings and Queens as opposed to Deuecs Threes and and Fours.
Click to expand...
B I N G O !
 
BamaProud":1f6d4jk3 said:
EastTNHunter":1f6d4jk3 said:
I'm not going to argue about the importance of recruiting, but the "science" of it is not exact. How can we prove that UGAs class is any better than OSUs? Also, your argument could also speak to the development of talent performed by several of these teams compared to others, as multiple top 10 classes is not a guarantee of any success.

My biggest beef is with the man stalkers, many of which are making threats or condescending comments to these kids about their college selection. Some of these even came from coaches.
Click to expand...

You don't have to prove that an individual player is better than another or even that an individual recruiting class at the University of XXXX is better than the recruiting class at the University of YYYY. It is an indisputable fact that Since 1996 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before they won it.

You are overthinking this nonsense. It isn't science, its simple statistics.
If College football was a card game, you stand a better chance of winning the game if you start off with Aces, Kings and Queens as opposed to Deuecs Threes and and Fours.
Click to expand...
I think that we are agreeing more than you think, but maybe I'm not articulating it well. I fully agree about recruiting being the lifeblood if an organization, and having good recruiting year in and out typically makes for winning football teams. But they still have to be coached up, and there are many diamonds in the rough.

The hype that class rankings and individual star rankings are what get me. A top ten class is a top ten class, but there may be nothing to differentiate between the number one and number five classes. The mythical "national champ" is nothing more than a figure skating score with some Russian judges on the panel.

I like to see a good class come in, but don't get excited about the class as a whole or individual contributors until they are derecruited and coached back up again in the spring and fall. That is where you can usually start to tell if a class or player is going to pan out. Man crushes or stalking on high school kids REALLY bothers me.
 
true. i think 1-5 is close to the same. 6-10 is not that far from 1-5. but to me the most important part of a class is filling needs and player development.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top