re: Non-LSU related, Georgia is having a very strange recruiting year

quote:

---

I see this used as a point about UGA developing guys, but that kind of assumes rankings are perfect, or at least close, right? Which I feel as a board we have even recently established that they definitely aren't.

---

I disagree. I mean, obviously they are not 100% accurate. Nothing is 100% accurate. But, if you see where recruiting classes finish up, they typically closely mirror the teams in the playoffs. I mean the last few years the top teams have been Alabama and Georgia and those are the teams that typically finish at or near the top of the playoffs.

quote:

---

It would make more sense that they were just underrated to begin with, not that UGA took an actual 3 star caliber player and made him into a 4 or 5 star.

---

It's a point, but wouldn't it also be logical that there are a lot of 4* and 5* trated talents that are not?

I mean, it's not enough to sign highly rated classes. You would have to develop the talent, too.

I doubt IMG or any of the other top High Schools would do well against a top 25 college team, so players are definitely being developed. I doubt an All-Star team of nothing but 5* would do well in a game against a playoff team.

Everybody is making a lot of good points, but I think instead of digging in my heels I will say that to compete you must do a good job of signing top rated talent and then developing it.

There is, and always will be exceptions to the rule. (TCU and Cincinnati) but those exceptions got exposed in the playoffs.

No offense, but you can't argue that Georgia players succeed because they are playing around a bunch of studs and highly ranked players and then also argue that the rankings are not accurate.

Are the rankings 100% correct? No.

But what a lot of people forget is the highest ranked teams in college football typically have the highest ranked classes. I do believe that there are some ranking that are missed for various reasons. Maybe a kid comes from a small school and is overlooked. Maybe a kid does not go to a bunch of camps and is overlooked. Maybe a kid is just a slow developer.

But that is where coach evaluations come in. It's also important that the coaches have a good relationship with many smaller schools so that a High School coach will want to reach out and let them know they should take a look at a kid on their team. (That benefits everybody because colleges find low ranked studs, a kid that might get passed over is noticed, and the HS coach gets attention for developing and helping his kids) That's where Harsin at Auburn seemed to struggle according to Auburn fans. He alienated many HS coaches and did not like to recruit.

Another aspect is coaches can't get drawn in to the stars hype and find good fits for the team. Is a player selfish? Lazy? Character issues? Bad student?
Can the player be a leader? Hard worker? Somebody who encourages teammates? Helps teach other teammates? Accepts instruction? Accepts criticism? Is a self motivator?

It's tricky when you get 5* kids that might have some negative traits. Are they worth the trouble thy might create on the team?

This is something Saban has done so well over the years. It's probably the biggest takeaway Kirby took from working with Saban is my guess. Work ethic and how to identify good and bad traits.