Started By
Message
Some more Rivals math....
Posted on 1/29/13 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 1/29/13 at 2:06 pm
Here's the breakdown of 4 star and higher recruits Arkansas has signed since 2007. I could go back to 2002 but my eyes are already bleeding from the numbers...perhaps I will later.
2007: 5*-0 4*-4
2008: 5*-0 4*-6
2009: 5*-1 4*-8
2010: 5*-0 4*-3
2011: 5*-0 4*-4
2012: 5*-0 4*-2
What does this mean? It means we've made our living with developing 3 star and lower athletes. IMO this is why we've lacked consistency. Looking at some of the big names we missed and some that signed and didn't pan out, we have taken some chances on players and gotten burned but our bread and butter has been 3 star kids that blossomed when they got on campus.
Also, if you want to know why we struggled so badly this year (besides the leadership of JLS), just look at last year's class and count how many of those guys played significant minutes.
What does this mean for the new staff? beats me but I was in a research mood today and wondered about the number of big time recruits we've really had over the years.
09 was by far our best class in recent memory since DMac and Felix and with that class came our best success... so that does factor into success.
D. Winston was a 5* that really hasn't panned out but you also had 4 stars C. Berna, Rudell Crimm, Knile Davis, DD Jones, Anthony Leon, Austin Moss, Anthony Oden, and Ronnie Wingo. some playmakers in Davis and DD, Rudell and A. Leon were solid but the rest didn't do much....NOW look at the 3 star kids.... Alvin Bailey, Cobi Hamilton, Brandon Mitchell, Shauntez Bruce, Jerry Mitchell, Colton Nash, Ross Rasner, Lance Ray, Travis Swanson, Robert Thomas, Terrell Williams
Lots of solid players in that bunch. We shouldn't discount the 3* athlete...... I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
2007: 5*-0 4*-4
2008: 5*-0 4*-6
2009: 5*-1 4*-8
2010: 5*-0 4*-3
2011: 5*-0 4*-4
2012: 5*-0 4*-2
What does this mean? It means we've made our living with developing 3 star and lower athletes. IMO this is why we've lacked consistency. Looking at some of the big names we missed and some that signed and didn't pan out, we have taken some chances on players and gotten burned but our bread and butter has been 3 star kids that blossomed when they got on campus.
Also, if you want to know why we struggled so badly this year (besides the leadership of JLS), just look at last year's class and count how many of those guys played significant minutes.
What does this mean for the new staff? beats me but I was in a research mood today and wondered about the number of big time recruits we've really had over the years.
09 was by far our best class in recent memory since DMac and Felix and with that class came our best success... so that does factor into success.
D. Winston was a 5* that really hasn't panned out but you also had 4 stars C. Berna, Rudell Crimm, Knile Davis, DD Jones, Anthony Leon, Austin Moss, Anthony Oden, and Ronnie Wingo. some playmakers in Davis and DD, Rudell and A. Leon were solid but the rest didn't do much....NOW look at the 3 star kids.... Alvin Bailey, Cobi Hamilton, Brandon Mitchell, Shauntez Bruce, Jerry Mitchell, Colton Nash, Ross Rasner, Lance Ray, Travis Swanson, Robert Thomas, Terrell Williams
Lots of solid players in that bunch. We shouldn't discount the 3* athlete...... I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
4
Posted on 1/30/13 at 9:18 am to ElDawgHawg
I see I got no love for my research......
brutal fellas....just brutal..
brutal fellas....just brutal..
Posted on 1/30/13 at 9:21 am to ElDawgHawg
missed the thread somehow. I'll check it out when I get back in later this afternoon.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 10:27 am to ElDawgHawg
I'm just really unimpressed with the star rating system in general. There have been some good articles about the success or lack there of highly touted 4 and 5 star athletes in college. It's really hit or miss. Of course there are some whose talent is undeniable, but then for others, it's tough to judge how they will transition.
Darius Winston was one of the highest rated players we've had in a while. That did not go so well for us.
Darius Winston was one of the highest rated players we've had in a while. That did not go so well for us.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 10:43 am to ElDawgHawg
quote:
We shouldn't discount the 3* athlete...... I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
That's good because just two days ago you were saying how this class wasn't impressive due to the lack of 4 and 5 stars. Glad to see you came around so quickly.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 10:46 am to Stonehog
right... I did say that but that prompted my research. I have decided that sometimes it doesn't matter how high a kid is rated if he can't fit into the "system"
i.e. Darius Winston.... he's struggled with the complex defensive schemes since day 1.
i.e. Darius Winston.... he's struggled with the complex defensive schemes since day 1.
Posted on 1/30/13 at 10:52 am to ElDawgHawg
quote:
i.e. Darius Winston.... he's struggled with the complex defensive schemes since day 1.
Yeah he is the perfect example. Another problem with the star system is that recruits with a higher rating usually get the benefit of the doubt. People kept giving Winston time to develop just because he was a 5 star, even though he sucked every year.
Posted on 1/31/13 at 11:13 am to Stonehog
quote:
Yeah he is the perfect example. Another problem with the star system is that recruits with a higher rating usually get the benefit of the doubt. People kept giving Winston time to develop just because he was a 5 star, even though he sucked every year.
That's true, but you're talking about ONE example.
Take them as a whole and percentage wise 5*>4*>3*
That's just simple logic.
Of course you're going to find outliers on either end to point at say "see, told you"
It's no coincidence that the teams that are CONSISTENTLY in the top 10 recruiting rankings are also consistently in the top final polls. Once again, of course outliers can be found.
That being said, I'm not sure Arkansas can ever be a consistent top 10 school in either list, nor do we need to be.
We seen what Petrino was able to do here with quite frankly subpar recruiting. If Beliema can even slightly improve the recruiting and win at the same pace, we'll be more than alright .
Posted on 1/31/13 at 1:34 pm to BTHog
we will never be a consistent top 10 recruiting team because our instate kids will never be ranked as high as kids from TX, FL, and other southern states.
Posted on 1/31/13 at 2:22 pm to ElDawgHawg
quote:
we will never be a consistent top 10 recruiting team because our instate kids will never be ranked as high as kids from TX, FL, and other southern states.
Untrue. DMac,Mustain,Dwill,Dyer, etc etc. Arkansas kids can be rated as highly as kids from TX,FL, or what have you.
The difference is we have 1 maybe 2 of those kids a year compared to 10 or more from TX or FL
But I did the numbers a couple seasons ago and we were only averaging 7 recruits a year out of Arkansas anyway (I think this was in 2008) so the numbers may have changed some, but its not like we're only recruiting Arkansas anyway.
And we don't need to be a top10 recruiting team, but we DO need to be a top 20 recruiting team consistently, unless you're satisfied with 3rd in the West and Sugar Bowl losses once in a blue moon.
Posted on 1/31/13 at 2:44 pm to BTHog
quote:
And we don't need to be a top10 recruiting team, but we DO need to be a top 20 recruiting team consistently, unless you're satisfied with 3rd in the West and Sugar Bowl losses once in a blue moon.
Nutt out recruited Petrino, on average, according to the recruiting rankings 27th nationally, 8th in the SEC with aTm and Mizzou included compared to Petrino's 31st nationally 10th in the SEC while Petrino had something Nutt never did, a top 20 class.
Petrino also had something Nutt never did, a class outside the top 30, several of them.
Recruiting rankings do not guarantee success or failure, if I wanted to waste my time to prove the point I could pick out just as many teams who averaged a top 20 class who were terrible this past season over the past five years like Auburn, Tennessee and then could find just as many who averaged outside say the top 40 in the recruiting rankings who have finished inside the top 15 the season like Kansas State, just off the top of my head.
Yes, there are just so many 5 and 4 star players to go around and the recruiting rankings will reflect on the teams who sign these players, the real world results will come down to the 3 stars as every team outside of SC this year will sign these players, the majority of their rosters end up be comprised of these players in most instances. What it really comes down to is a coaching staffs ability to evaluate these players and develop these players as you will have 5 and 4* bust, people notice these and point to them, just as you will have the 3 and 2* guys who become super stars, those are the exceptions to the rule, the coaches make their money developing the 3* guys as often times they are more valuable than many realize in terms of depth, special teams, etc in add up to wins in the big scheme of things.
Posted on 1/31/13 at 5:16 pm to ElDawgHawg
What hurt us during Petrino era was that almost every higher rated guy we got was a bust
Posted on 2/1/13 at 1:26 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
Nutt out recruited Petrino, on average, according to the recruiting rankings 27th nationally, 8th in the SEC with aTm and Mizzou included compared to Petrino's 31st nationally 10th in the SEC while Petrino had something Nutt never did, a top 20 class.
Who cares about Houston Nutt? Dude should NEVER be used as a measuring stick for anything, he's completely average in all respects.
quote:
Recruiting rankings do not guarantee success or failure, if I wanted to waste my time to prove the point I could pick out just as many teams who averaged a top 20 class who were terrible this past season over the past five years like Auburn, Tennessee and then could find just as many who averaged outside say the top 40 in the recruiting rankings who have finished inside the top 15 the season like Kansas State, just off the top of my head.
No you couldn't , you could post OUTLIERS, do you know what those are?
ON AVERAGE schools which recruit the best win the most. That is just a bar none fact. Denying it is foolish.
quote:
Yes, there are just so many 5 and 4 star players to go around and the recruiting rankings will reflect on the teams who sign these players,
Again, this is untrue. Did Mustain drop when he signed with Arkansas? Did DMac? etc etc.
The truth is that it only APPEARS that kids from the big schools get a bump in ratings because those are the kids we hear about. But if you look at the actual numbers even schools like Alabama, USC, and Texas sign 3 star players, and they aren't being bumped to 4 stars simply b/c they signed with USC, or Bama, or Texas. Why is that, is there some formula which calculates which students get a bump and which don't?
quote:
What it really comes down to is a coaching staffs ability to evaluate these players and develop these players as you will have 5 and 4* bust, people notice these and point to them, just as you will have the 3 and 2* guys who become super stars, those are the exceptions to the rule, the coaches make their money developing the 3* guys as often times they are more valuable than many realize in terms of depth, special teams, etc in add up to wins in the big scheme of things.
no doubt true here,but you still gotta have at least some superior talent on a team to win. Some kids that are just natural born athletes.
Even Nick Saban , the undisputed King of Coaches right now wouldn't win national titles without some star players.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 1:47 pm to BTHog
quote:
No you couldn't , you could post OUTLIERS, do you know what those are?
ON AVERAGE schools which recruit the best win the most. That is just a bar none fact. Denying it is foolish.
Except recruiting rankings do not guarantee success. There is an important factor you are ignoring in the process...
Two of the programs with the most wins in CFB since the rankings started happen to average classes in the 40+ range. More excuses will follow as to why this is true, but recruiting rankings =/= wins.
quote:
Again, this is untrue. Did Mustain drop when he signed with Arkansas? Did DMac? etc etc.
The truth is that it only APPEARS that kids from the big schools get a bump in ratings because those are the kids we hear about. But if you look at the actual numbers even schools like Alabama, USC, and Texas sign 3 star players, and they aren't being bumped to 4 stars simply b/c they signed with USC, or Bama, or Texas. Why is that, is there some formula which calculates which students get a bump and which don't?
Where did I say anything about bumps in rankings? I said the rankings reflect schools who sign the limited amount of 5 and 4 star players.
Now if you want to argue where the majority of these players come from and which programs have an advantage of signing these players due to proximity, that would be a better argument.
Rivals also started giving bonus points in their rankings a few years back for signing the top players from each state, you would get bonus points for signing the number one player from Alaska even if he was a 2* over a 4 star from Florida for example.
quote:
no doubt true here,but you still gotta have at least some superior talent on a team to win. Some kids that are just natural born athletes.
Even Nick Saban , the undisputed King of Coaches right now wouldn't win national titles without some star players.
Sure you have to have star players, every team has star players, but if you look up the past Heisman winners, you may be surprised at how many of them were 3* coming out of HS.
People put too much stock into the rankings, there really isn't that much difference in say the #5 class and the #15 class, but none of the rankings make a damn if a team isn't recruiting to fill their needs. A coach could sign a class full of 5* talent at the skill positions and not have the lines needed to get to a bowl better than the liberty bowl, but the recruiting rankings would have had that class in the top 5.
The whole idea that a group of people can take every prospect in America and rank them in order based on talent and potential is silly at best, a profitable form of entertainment for them just like wrestling has been for Vince McMahon but it still comes down to the 10 coaches for each university who are paid millions to do the jobs they are paid to do...
Page 1 of 1
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News