Since I wasted my time doing this, I thought I would share it. The following is the number of 5 and 4 star recruits (per Rivals) from 05 to 08 SEC West: (first number is 5 star, second number is 4 star) LSU 7 49 Bama 5 45 AU 4 38 Ole Miss 3 17 Ark 2 17 Miss St 0 14 SEC East: FL 12 53 GA 4 48 TN 7 35 SC 0 32 KY 0 4 Vandy 0 1 Others of note: USC 15 46 FL ST 6 51 Okla 7 48 Tx 4 47 MICH 5 41 Miami 5 42 ND 6 40 Tosu 7 38 Interesting to note: Everyone talks about how awesome USC's recruiting is (and it is), but FL has more 4 and 5 stars (65) than USC (61). LSU is not too far behind at 56. Bama did not "come out of nowhere". They have 50 4 and 5 star recruits. Of course 22 of those are true freshman, so I expect injuries and inexperience to hurt them down the stretch. I wonder if the fact that USC has so many high star skill position players hurts them. Do you really need that many running backs? I am aware of the fact that I did not take into account recruits who are no longer on their teams due to injury, transfer, jail, ect... (if I did I think Ark would be at the bottom of the West). I also know that you can't just go by the stars and the development of 3 star players is extremely important. But the facts speak for themselves, LSU, FL and GA have had the recruits, and they have won all but one SECCG since 2000, AU won in 04. Top 14, 4 and 5 stars per rivals, last 4 years: FL 65, USC 61, FL St 57, LSU 56, Okla 55, GA 52, TX 51, Bama 50, Miami 47, ND 46,MICH 46,Tosu 45, AU 42, TN 42 I only did this for the SEC and the other top programs I could think of. Let me know if I left someone off. I think this top 10 is correct, but would appreciate any corrections
I'm quite surprised to see UF that far ahead of us (and the rest of the SEC). Miami & Florida St are obviously two programs who's recruiting hasn't translated to on-field success as of late.
Gee whiz, guys, get ahold of yourselves. Don't you realize that local 'sport politics' plays a part sometimes in the amount/quality of hype that these recruits receive? Remembering my high school days from the 50s, I was purposely ignored by the (Catholic) sports editor despite being the #1 baseball player for my position during my junior and senior seasons. It was because I had attended a private Catholic grammar school, the local Catholic high school had just won back-to-back state championships, so I was the designated 'savior' of their program and expected to lead them to more championships. Right? Wrong! I chose to attend the local public high school, not because of its dominant sports programs, but for its high quality of education I would receive. Growing up in Louisiana after WWII with few jobs available to youth other than working on a farm was a great motivator to get an education which would provide better economic opportunities than my father's working for the U.S. Post Office (grave-yard shift provided him an extra 2 1/2 cents an hour over base 40 cents in 1940). Everything is not all it seems to be - unless all the facts are known. Win or lose, we still love our Tiger football. In attendance at LSU from 1961-64, and again 1968-69. :geaux:
I am sorry but I do not get your point. I in no way posted this as a complaint. I just thought it would be interesting to see how programs are doing based on recruiting rankings. I am a huge fan, went to LSU in the 80's, and went to the games and cheered when we won 3 games in a season. Obviously, recruiting rankings are not perfect. But I do think they are valid. Every BCS champ is in the top of the recruiting figures above. Most of the teams that are in today's top 10 are in the rankings above. Geaux Tigers!
Yes, but it is a good tool for seeing how much talent a team has. We'll just pretend your post was a very long, "thank you."
here's the article i wrote based on this thread. thanks again sugar!!! http://bleacherreport.com/articles/64670-do-recruiting-rankings-equal-success-in-college-football
thanks again, just fyi, i won "article of the day" for that article. that was my ninth time winning. thanks for being a part of that.
