Recruiting Rankins vs. Results

[LegalEagle 22]

Ok, I've got a chart for you. On the left is the year (2002-2003 = 2002), next is the Scout recruiting rank for that year, followed by the AP national ranking and the W-L record. All info is for AU of course. It looks to me that good times are ahead. Any thoughts or observations?

Year Rank AP W-L

2002 11 14 9-4

2003 16 NR 8-5

2004 31 02 13-0

2005 22 14 9-3

2006 09 09 11-2

2007 10 - -

Sorry, I couldn't get spacing to work. I hope you can follow it.

[BamaGrad03 146]

The national top 10 teams in recruiting usually do very well in the final polls.

The trend is there...I think it's quite telling.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

I don't think the recruiting rankings for a particular year translate to an immediate improvement or indication of the record the following fall. For example, the class of 2006 (Hawthorne, Ricks, Tate, Fannin, etc.) impacted the 11-2 season very little.

A more telling study would be the comparision of a class from say, spring of 2003, which is where seniors and redshirt juniors came from, for the record and ranking of 2006.

[WAR-MATT 2]

People that say recruiting rankings don't matter are only fooling themselves.

[saniflush 0]

People that say recruiting rankings don't matter are only fooling themselves.

IMO you are partially right and partially not. Recruiting services do not have a good measure on a couple of things. The first being did you fill the needs you have? The second is ranking intagiable things like heart. I don't disagree that you have to do well in recruiting but just because a kid has all the athletic tools to be a star does not mean he can play in a team atmosphere.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

People that say recruiting rankings don't matter are only fooling themselves.

Who said that?

[WAR-MATT 2]

People that say recruiting rankings don't matter are only fooling themselves.

Who said that?

I have read that statement on many occasion.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Why bring it up in a thread where no one has said it yet?

[Tigermike 3,025]

Recruiting rankings can be skewed by one or two highly ranked players. But if those two players don't get into school because of grades, how accurate is the ranking? Therefore I would say getting the players you sign into school is more important than the high rankings.

[WAR-MATT 2]

Why bring it up in a thread where no one has said it yet?

Easy TM I was just backing up Legal Eagle's post.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

As were other replies that actually had a point.

[WAR-MATT 2]

As were other replies that actually had a point.

You don't think our lack of depth at WR and in the secondary this year isn't a reflection of our poor recruiting ranking in 04? I know we went 11-2 but we struggled all year to achieve that because of our lack of depth in those areas.

[BamaGrad03 146]

As were other replies that actually had a point.

Oh snap!

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

As were other replies that actually had a point.

You don't think our lack of depth at WR and in the secondary this year isn't a reflection of our poor recruiting ranking in 04? I know we went 11-2 but we struggled all year to achieve that because of our lack of depth in those areas.

Much better. You provided some insightfulness and depth to your post.

[BamaGrad03 146]

Much better. You provided some insightfulness and depth to your post.

However, some more punctuation in his last sentence would have been greatly appreciated.

[WAR-MATT 2]

Much better. You provided some insightfulness and depth to your post.

However, some more punctuation in his last sentence would have been greatly appreciated.

Easy BG.

[Bama Possum 0]

I think the rankings after a certain point just become too subjective. Most players who are rated really highly are the ones that are so obviously gifted that a moron could say they were 5-stars. After that, it gets sticky because of those mentioned intangibles.

When you look back at those recruiting classes, see where those highly rated players are now and what they contributed.

I admit that having quality recruiting classes contributes greatly to success. Gotta have chicken to make chicken salad, but a team has to have it all. Look at Tennessee last year. That team was made up of three or four top-end classes, yet they underachieved big time. I think you'll also see that Rugters and Wake Forest have had low ranked classes yet ended up ranked well. (I think they would have been slaughtered in the SEC though.)

It's fun to speculate about how much a great class is going to help though.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I think the rankings after a certain point just become too subjective. Most players who are rated really highly are the ones that are so obviously gifted that a moron could say they were 5-stars. After that, it gets sticky because of those mentioned intangibles.

When you look back at those recruiting classes, see where those highly rated players are now and what they contributed.

I admit that having quality recruiting classes contributes greatly to success. Gotta have chicken to make chicken salad, but a team has to have it all. Look at Tennessee last year. That team was made up of three or four top-end classes, yet they underachieved big time. I think you'll also see that Rugters and Wake Forest have had low ranked classes yet ended up ranked well. (I think they would have been slaughtered in the SEC though.)

It's fun to speculate about how much a great class is going to help though.

You are correct. Ray Goff at had stellar classes and did nothing with them at all. is now in the same boat. Donnan had great classes too. You have to recruit, develop, and then coach them up. CTT does all three well.

[DyeEraTiger 0]

People that say recruiting rankings don't matter are only fooling themselves.

IMO you are partially right and partially not. Recruiting services do not have a good measure on a couple of things. The first being did you fill the needs you have? The second is ranking intagiable things like heart. I don't disagree that you have to do well in recruiting but just because a kid has all the athletic tools to be a star does not mean he can play in a team atmosphere.

Great point. And TigerMike makes a great one as well. How many qualify and actually sign. I think that the correlation is there between the rankings and success too. But, I know that it certainly doesn't always work out that way. What the staff does with them is much more important. Everyone always mentions the 92 UA team and it's true. Those seniors were, I believe, not in the top 20 recruiting class. So, though young athleticism is great. Sometimes though, the heart, desire, maturity factors--that CTT seems to have a knack for seeing--are even more telling and important. And they can't rank that.