Started By
Message
re: 2015 Football Recruiting Thread *Offer/Commit List and Videos on 1st Page*
Posted on 6/24/14 at 5:12 pm to Sarcastro
Posted on 6/24/14 at 5:12 pm to Sarcastro
quote:
Really, if a local recruit isn't on board with the program after last season, then screw him.
Unfortunately there's too many who think like that.
0
Posted on 6/24/14 at 5:34 pm to mosoblkcougar
quote:
What an odd choice. Later loser, definitely not a True Son.
I'll never understand the reaction in this manner to a kid (yes an actual kid) making a life decision that they see as the best for them.
This post was edited on 6/24/14 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 6/24/14 at 5:57 pm to SEC. 593
My bigger concern is with the bigger picture and the trend since we've joined the SEC with the top instate players.
I'm more concerned with whether the staff is spending so much time concentrating on developing Georgia/Florida that the local kids aren't getting the love they deserve. I doubt that's the case. The last 2 years are probably an anomaly, but at some point it becomes more than that.
I'm more concerned with whether the staff is spending so much time concentrating on developing Georgia/Florida that the local kids aren't getting the love they deserve. I doubt that's the case. The last 2 years are probably an anomaly, but at some point it becomes more than that.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 5:57 pm to reedus23
Mizzou puts too much emphasis on the out of state pipelines, which are very necessary, I just see (from the outside) more of an emphasis on getting buddy-buddy with out of state schools instead of taking care of our own first.
We took too many WR's in '14, have no idea why we took some of the kids we took. My only thought is they were trying to build in-roads with schools out of state.
Things have changed, Missouri has HS talent. Really no excuse to have such an atrocious record with getting top 10 in state talent.
We took too many WR's in '14, have no idea why we took some of the kids we took. My only thought is they were trying to build in-roads with schools out of state.
Things have changed, Missouri has HS talent. Really no excuse to have such an atrocious record with getting top 10 in state talent.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 5:59 pm to Sleeping Tiger
If Mizzou wants to win the SEC they need to land trio's like Lock, Ofadile, and Hentges.
With TN waking up, FLA is still a powerhouse, UGA, and USCe... Mizzou is destined to strive for 8-4 seasons and go to decent bowls.
With TN waking up, FLA is still a powerhouse, UGA, and USCe... Mizzou is destined to strive for 8-4 seasons and go to decent bowls.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 6:23 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Put some very generic numbers together based on the top 10 recruits per state, but have only gotten as far back as 2013. So far, the percentage of the top 10 that stay in state:
Alabama: 96%
Arkansas: 70%
Florida: 48%
Georgia: 21%
Kentucky: 61%
Louisiana: 58%
Mississippi: 88%
South Carolina: 58%
Tennessee: 60%
Illinois: 28%
Indiana: 60%
Michigan: 74%
Minnesota: 36%
Ohio: 40%
Wisconsin: 48%
Iowa: 77%
Nebraska: 46%
Kansas: 41%
Oklahoma: 68%
Texas: 52%
Missouri: 37%
The schools closest to Mizzou:
Georgia: 21%
Illinois: 28%
Minnesota: 36%
Ohio: 40%
Nebraska: 46%
Kansas: 41%
Seems to me 3 things come into play.
1. Your state produces a butt load of talent where getting the #15 player is as good as getting the #1 player from another state. Mizzou doesn't have this luxury in Missouri like UGA or tOSU does. Makes landing the top instate kids you go after that much more important.
2. Your state produces very little big time D1 talent. States like Nebraska, Minnesota or kansas may have 4 to 6 of their top 10 that can only manage offers from Tulsa and the like. So their percentages are dragged down, almost unfairly. Again, not the case in Missouri. The state produces more than 10 top D1 kids each year so our numbers aren't artificially dragged down.
3. Your program/coach sucks. See Illinois. What numbers stay instate are really because of Northwestern, not Illinois. I don't want to be an Illinois.
Alabama: 96%
Arkansas: 70%
Florida: 48%
Georgia: 21%
Kentucky: 61%
Louisiana: 58%
Mississippi: 88%
South Carolina: 58%
Tennessee: 60%
Illinois: 28%
Indiana: 60%
Michigan: 74%
Minnesota: 36%
Ohio: 40%
Wisconsin: 48%
Iowa: 77%
Nebraska: 46%
Kansas: 41%
Oklahoma: 68%
Texas: 52%
Missouri: 37%
The schools closest to Mizzou:
Georgia: 21%
Illinois: 28%
Minnesota: 36%
Ohio: 40%
Nebraska: 46%
Kansas: 41%
Seems to me 3 things come into play.
1. Your state produces a butt load of talent where getting the #15 player is as good as getting the #1 player from another state. Mizzou doesn't have this luxury in Missouri like UGA or tOSU does. Makes landing the top instate kids you go after that much more important.
2. Your state produces very little big time D1 talent. States like Nebraska, Minnesota or kansas may have 4 to 6 of their top 10 that can only manage offers from Tulsa and the like. So their percentages are dragged down, almost unfairly. Again, not the case in Missouri. The state produces more than 10 top D1 kids each year so our numbers aren't artificially dragged down.
3. Your program/coach sucks. See Illinois. What numbers stay instate are really because of Northwestern, not Illinois. I don't want to be an Illinois.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 9:20 pm to SEC. 593
quote:
I'll never understand the reaction in this manner to a kid (yes an actual kid) making a life decision that they see as the best for them.
What you want me to slob his knob for going away from my favorite school when he is a hometowner? frick that, I do not wish him ill will but he is dead to me. I do not wish him ill OR well.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 10:48 pm to Tackle74
There's no other major D1 university in state to compete with Mizzou in football recruiting, they have to be able to land more hometown kids, there's no excuse for it when you think about it.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 10:55 pm to TigerBornTigerBred
I'm not sure if I should feel pity or envy for how much time and energy you put into this account.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 11:10 pm to reedus23
quote:
Missouri: 37%
We need this to be about 50% IMO. Take about 5 of the top 10 every year. This would allow about 15 players able to contribute any 1 year over the last 3 years from MO. So about a 50% success rate on that would give you 7 to 8 players helping Mizzou from MO every year. I think that is close to what we had last year, one of our best years ever. I'll take 5 kids from MO, 5 from FL, 5 from GA, 5 from TX, and 5 from the other states every year. Get the kids the coaches want and we could really increase our talent and depth.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 11:13 pm to Tigersessed
quote:
I'm not sure if I should feel pity or envy for how much time and energy you put into this account.
what?
Posted on 6/24/14 at 11:21 pm to TigerBornTigerBred
You post like a simpleton alter is all. If that is your posting style, more power to you. 
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:30 am to Tigersessed
Back to recruiting guys. I agree with getting those percentages closer to 50%. In fairness, those numbers only went back to 2013 and then rivals crapped out on me for some reason. I'm fairly certain that the years before that were somewhat better, though I don't know if they get to 50% or not, and would coincide with last year as you said.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 4:18 am to reedus23
Any chance the bad press generated by the Sasha Menu Courey death has contributed this? Not to mention Green-Beckham and others in the FB and BB programs that have run afoul of the law.
It definitely could leave an impression of a program with a lack of institutional control with parents.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 8:05 am to Mizz-SEC
It could, but I have to believe that it's worse at other schools. Not sure about Oregon, but despite some of our problems, I don't think they've been that numerous or that severe. Even the Menu case, while sad and regrettable, I don't know what else the school, much less the program, could have done.
ETA-Plus, I think the way DGB was handled shows just the opposite. Nothing but institutional control.
ETA-Plus, I think the way DGB was handled shows just the opposite. Nothing but institutional control.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 8:06 am
Posted on 6/25/14 at 8:37 am to reedus23
Geezus effing christ people. Percentages and in-state recruiting doesn't mean shite. When these players that leave end up doing something, then we can complain about missing these players.
We are losing these guys because the staff isn't treating them like future 1st team AAs like other schools are. So far, it appears the staff is correct when they do that. Until the staff does it and misses a kid who actually does something of significance, all that matters is finding good players and winning. They are doing that for now.
It sure seems the kids GP's staff REALLY want badly, they don't miss.
We are losing these guys because the staff isn't treating them like future 1st team AAs like other schools are. So far, it appears the staff is correct when they do that. Until the staff does it and misses a kid who actually does something of significance, all that matters is finding good players and winning. They are doing that for now.
It sure seems the kids GP's staff REALLY want badly, they don't miss.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:48 am to notsince98
It easy to see a kid who grows up in Columbia wanting to get away to go to school.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:04 am to Sleeping Tiger
Sleeping Tiger...
Mizzou took a lot of receivers last year because we had to. There are 3 seniors, 1 junior, and 1 sophomore receivers on the team this coming year. Only the 3 seniors have any real playing time. Several of the 6 freshman receivers will have to play this year just to give us depth.
That also means we need several more receivers in this class (even with Darnell Green). I don't think that last years receiver recruits would worry any new ones this year.
Mizzou took a lot of receivers last year because we had to. There are 3 seniors, 1 junior, and 1 sophomore receivers on the team this coming year. Only the 3 seniors have any real playing time. Several of the 6 freshman receivers will have to play this year just to give us depth.
That also means we need several more receivers in this class (even with Darnell Green). I don't think that last years receiver recruits would worry any new ones this year.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:27 am to TigerBornTigerBred
TigerBornTigerBred..
What 7 year period? Or by what metric?
Over the last 7 years (2007-13) Mizzou is in a three way tie for 16th by winning percent, a six way tie for 11th by total wins. If you limit those to just the big 5 conferences the numbers are a 3 way tie for 11th and a five way tie for 9th
LINK
Don't get me wrong, both are still great and worth celebrating. Especially when considering from 1970-99 we were 80th by percent and 74th by total wins...
What 7 year period? Or by what metric?
Over the last 7 years (2007-13) Mizzou is in a three way tie for 16th by winning percent, a six way tie for 11th by total wins. If you limit those to just the big 5 conferences the numbers are a 3 way tie for 11th and a five way tie for 9th
LINK
Don't get me wrong, both are still great and worth celebrating. Especially when considering from 1970-99 we were 80th by percent and 74th by total wins...
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:20 pm to Mizz-SEC
quote:
Any chance the bad press generated by the Sasha Menu Courey death has contributed this? Not to mention Green-Beckham and others in the FB and BB programs that have run afoul of the law.
It definitely could leave an impression of a program with a lack of institutional control with parents.
Yep, parents have been avoiding Mizzou like the plague since Pinkels DUI, heard it through the grapevine and I believe it.
Page 53 of 182
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News