Started By
Message
People knowledgable about recruiting help me out
Posted on 1/14/14 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 1/14/14 at 6:56 pm
How is it that a school like Tennessee ranks 6th in the country in recruiting whereas a school like Mizzou ranks in the 30-40's?
I understand tradition. Obviously Tennessee is historically an elite program and Mizzou isn't. But at some point I would think tradition was too long ago to keep Tennessee from pulling in these classes. There is no comparison between Mizzou and Tennessee the last 5+ years, yet Tennessee recruits 4 and 5 stars and we recruit mostly 3's.
You would think kids would want to play at a school that is successful and winning NOW and not one that was successful 15 years ago.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not caught up on star ratings. I'm just curious why Tennessee, for example, is still more appealing.
I understand tradition. Obviously Tennessee is historically an elite program and Mizzou isn't. But at some point I would think tradition was too long ago to keep Tennessee from pulling in these classes. There is no comparison between Mizzou and Tennessee the last 5+ years, yet Tennessee recruits 4 and 5 stars and we recruit mostly 3's.
You would think kids would want to play at a school that is successful and winning NOW and not one that was successful 15 years ago.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not caught up on star ratings. I'm just curious why Tennessee, for example, is still more appealing.
This post was edited on 1/14/14 at 6:57 pm
3
Posted on 1/14/14 at 7:01 pm to KCM0Tiger
It goes off star rating ranking the higher classes are loaded with topend talent..And i have no clue how tenn is still pulling in that kind of class must have a great snake oil salesmen lol cause they havent been good for awhile now
Posted on 1/14/14 at 7:38 pm to KCM0Tiger
Bigger stadium. Crazy arse fans. Incredible tradition. National championships. Closer proximity to key southern states. Established SEC team.
Beyond that, are they 4*s based on talent or are they 4*'s because of who is offering them. In other words, take Player X. He is offered by UT and gets a 4* rating. Now assume that offer was never made but Mizzou offered him. My bet is he stays a 2* or 3*. Same exact player. Same exact skills. Same exact stats. Just two different teams that offered. Tavon Ross is a good example. Kid is no way a 2* talent. But for the longest time it was only Mizzou pursuing him. Now UGA and others are and I'd bet if they started pursuing earlier he would have ended up a 3* minimum.
Beyond that, are they 4*s based on talent or are they 4*'s because of who is offering them. In other words, take Player X. He is offered by UT and gets a 4* rating. Now assume that offer was never made but Mizzou offered him. My bet is he stays a 2* or 3*. Same exact player. Same exact skills. Same exact stats. Just two different teams that offered. Tavon Ross is a good example. Kid is no way a 2* talent. But for the longest time it was only Mizzou pursuing him. Now UGA and others are and I'd bet if they started pursuing earlier he would have ended up a 3* minimum.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 8:28 am to KCM0Tiger
Tennessee boosters are pretty good, always have been...
100,000+ stadium
Tradition
That orange attracts them like flies
ETA: Faurot expansion will help alot. We need to keep selling out. If we can expand the south endzone like they have been talking about, It could add about 18K to Faurot. That would be huge for our school and program
100,000+ stadium
Tradition
That orange attracts them like flies
ETA: Faurot expansion will help alot. We need to keep selling out. If we can expand the south endzone like they have been talking about, It could add about 18K to Faurot. That would be huge for our school and program
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 8:30 am
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:44 am to reedus23
quote:
Beyond that, are they 4*s based on talent or are they 4*'s because of who is offering them. In other words, take Player X. He is offered by UT and gets a 4* rating. Now assume that offer was never made but Mizzou offered him. My bet is he stays a 2* or 3*. Same exact player. Same exact skills. Same exact stats. Just two different teams that offered. Tavon Ross is a good example. Kid is no way a 2* talent. But for the longest time it was only Mizzou pursuing him. Now UGA and others are and I'd bet if they started pursuing earlier he would have ended up a 3* minimum.
^^^This. And its all augmented by the fact our coaches quite deliberately NEVER look at recruiting rankings or use external scouting or recruit evaluation services. Instead, our coaches have their own system and set of criteria they use to grade a recruit's potential. The result has been Mizzou consistently finding more "diamond in the rough" type players according to national recruiting rankings than just about anyone.
These same rankings that say Tennessee's class is way better than Mizzou's would have also told you that Michael Sam, L'Damian Washington, Michael Egnew, Danario Alexander, Sean Weatherspoon etc were worthless recruits unlikely to ever amount to a hill of beans. These same rankings would have told you that the Tennessee players on the field THIS YEAR in their game against Mizzou should have been better than the players on the field for Mizzou as a group - did it look that way to you in reality? Our coaching staff is not perfect in its talent evaluation and recruiting, but they've done enough to earn our trust level at this point regardless of what the rankings say.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 9:48 am
Posted on 1/15/14 at 10:52 am to Mizzou Fan in Da ATX
Additionally, there are a large number of schools out there that pay money to services to help them identify players. This is part of the reason that a lot of the same schools tend to recruit the same players. As mentioned previously when a kid gets interest from multiple 'name' schools they get a bump in ratings.
Also the recruiting websites make their money off of people who pay for their information. They know what schools have the most passionate fan bases by which ones give them money. In any business it is important to make your clients happy so they give you more money. Therefore if a school's fans give them lots of money they will lean towards making their recruits look better, thus generating more traffic and belief that they are a reliable service.
You will find that older coaches that pre-date these recruiting websites have an actual system to identify talent that varies from the websites systems in some cases. This is one of the main reasons that Mizzou won't offer a kid until they actually get to see them in person.
Also the recruiting websites make their money off of people who pay for their information. They know what schools have the most passionate fan bases by which ones give them money. In any business it is important to make your clients happy so they give you more money. Therefore if a school's fans give them lots of money they will lean towards making their recruits look better, thus generating more traffic and belief that they are a reliable service.
You will find that older coaches that pre-date these recruiting websites have an actual system to identify talent that varies from the websites systems in some cases. This is one of the main reasons that Mizzou won't offer a kid until they actually get to see them in person.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 11:58 am to Koch Snowflake
Pinkel is not a great recruiter. He is a very good coach and getting the most out of his players but not great at getting already talented players. Also Henson said in the off season it would be hard to recruit in ANY conference with our current facilities. Mizzou has only been a good program the last 6-8 years so updates and improvements are just now starting to happen.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 12:51 pm to Mizzou23
Along with location and history:
Facilities. Mizzou is in the process of upgrading but Tennessee has elite facilities.
Tennessee athletic budget is around $100 million. Mizzou is around $64ish million.
Facilities. Mizzou is in the process of upgrading but Tennessee has elite facilities.
Tennessee athletic budget is around $100 million. Mizzou is around $64ish million.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 5:47 pm to Koch Snowflake
quote:
Additionally, there are a large number of schools out there that pay money to services to help them identify players. This is part of the reason that a lot of the same schools tend to recruit the same players.
I'm sure this is true, and it appears that some schools are paying a little bit of attention to Pinkel's offers and re-evaluating the off-the-radar kids.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 10:49 pm to roadhouse
Always lost in this discussion are accurate talent evaluation, player development, perception of the program and whether the program is in ascendancy or decline.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 11:34 pm to ozland
Another factor that hasn't been mentioned is the honeymoon period for a new coach. You've got the tradition and facilities of Tennessee, combined with some excitement around Butch Jones. Last year he came into recruiting late, so this is his first full recruiting cycle. If he doesn't produce improved results next season, it may begin to drop off.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 11:47 pm to semotruman
I don't know a lot about Butch Jones, but Tennessee fans seem happy.
Right now the perception of Tennessee and Missouri football are programs in ascendancy. With it comes fan excitement, alumni donations, improved recruitment and winning.
Right now the perception of Tennessee and Missouri football are programs in ascendancy. With it comes fan excitement, alumni donations, improved recruitment and winning.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 9:24 am to reedus23
quote:
Tavon Ross is a good example.
This. He will get a huge bump just because other schools wanted him.
There is a lot of chicken or the egg here. Is Alabama only offering 4/5 star talent or do that rate every kid Alabama offers a 4/5 star? Probably a little bit of both. I think Saban is the best in the game but we still have had our fair share of 4/5 starts who don't play like it in college and are gone in a couple of years.
A big part of Tennessee's ranking is that they have about 10 more commitments than Mizzou right now.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 11:54 am to Garfield
And Garfield, Tennessee is releasing players to have the room to take a class that big. This will be a big class for Mizzou, but we're getting around it to an extent with 6 early enrollees that can count against last year's smaller class.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 12:19 pm to semotruman
But I think for each additional recruit we sign from here on out means we have to drop an existing scholarship player. Pretty sure we determined in the recruiting thread that we have maxed out total scholarship allotment. In fact, we may already have to drop one because we were counting on DGB2 grey shirting but his latest tweet made it sound like he was planning on being on scholarship next year.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 12:28 pm to reedus23
I hate to think about us having a "process", but we're in the SEC now, so...
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:48 pm to semotruman
quote:
I hate to think about us having a "process", but we're in the SEC now, so...
I don't care for that bit of the process myself. I don't really feel bad for a kid that has been in the system for a few years and is a frick up or hasn't really bought in who is told he will never play and should look elsewhere. However, it's pretty shitty to tell a recruit he will have a spot and then at the last minute pull the rug out from under him. I would like to say that has not happened at Bama but it has (at LSU and USCe too).
Posted on 1/29/14 at 11:57 pm to Garfield
quote:
it's pretty shitty to tell a recruit he will have a spot and then at the last minute pull the rug out from under him. I would like to say that has not happened at Bama but it has (at LSU and USCe too).
Some recruits and/or their handlers lie, so that complicates the issue as well.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News