22
Started By
Message
Why Texas A&M and Texas have 1 Nati in 55 years despite some top recruiting classes
Posted on 8/4/25 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 8/4/25 at 10:49 pm
It comes down to this, over rating of recruits by recruiting services from high school kids from state of Texas. Let's take a look at 247 player rankings. I chose a random kid named Daylon McCutcheon. He is the 190th ranked prospect on 247, yet 31st in Texas. Let's break down what % Texas residents make up the Top 190 recruits vs what percent they make up in the NFL:
% of Texas residents in Top 190 recruits
31/190 = 16.31%
% of US made up by Texas population
31.29/340 = 9.2%
What recruiting services consider Texas born players to outperform the national average
16.31% / 9.2% = 1.77x, or recruiting services consider Texas kids to outperform national average by 77.2%
According to the graphic below, Texas produces only 9.6% higher than national average because they have 5.7 NFL player per million, and the national average is at 5.2 NFL players per million (5.7/5.2) = 1.09x. Yet recruiting services have them at 77% above national average. This means on average Texas high school recruits are overrated by about 62% because 1.77x/1.09x= 1.62x.
That is why you see TAMU or Texas get top classes, yet have no proof of winning Nati's or beating Top Tier teams. Recruiting services fall into the very oh so common simpleton thinking of "This state has a lot of NFL players, that means their high school players are better, like California and Texas." Completely neglecting the fact that California actually produces below the per capita national average, and Texas is right at the national average of NFL players per capita.
This pretty much holds steady across every single year, and not just the class of 2025 being overrated for TX.
% of Texas residents in Top 190 recruits
31/190 = 16.31%
% of US made up by Texas population
31.29/340 = 9.2%
What recruiting services consider Texas born players to outperform the national average
16.31% / 9.2% = 1.77x, or recruiting services consider Texas kids to outperform national average by 77.2%
According to the graphic below, Texas produces only 9.6% higher than national average because they have 5.7 NFL player per million, and the national average is at 5.2 NFL players per million (5.7/5.2) = 1.09x. Yet recruiting services have them at 77% above national average. This means on average Texas high school recruits are overrated by about 62% because 1.77x/1.09x= 1.62x.
That is why you see TAMU or Texas get top classes, yet have no proof of winning Nati's or beating Top Tier teams. Recruiting services fall into the very oh so common simpleton thinking of "This state has a lot of NFL players, that means their high school players are better, like California and Texas." Completely neglecting the fact that California actually produces below the per capita national average, and Texas is right at the national average of NFL players per capita.
This pretty much holds steady across every single year, and not just the class of 2025 being overrated for TX.
This post was edited on 8/5/25 at 1:58 am
Posted on 8/4/25 at 10:58 pm to Saunson69
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:01 pm to Eldodroptop
It's in the data. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you lol. Engineering school finally paid off for something 
I also think the same over rating of recruits the services did above is the same type of thinking of putting Texas at #1 in Coach's poll despite going 0-3 vs Ohio St and Georgia. Why in the heck would you put Texas above them when they literally lost to them 3 times? And now have a depleted roster.
It's the same concept, over rating of recruits, completely ignoring they lost to Georgia 2x last year, yet put them above Georgia. I think it is just stupidity.
I also think the same over rating of recruits the services did above is the same type of thinking of putting Texas at #1 in Coach's poll despite going 0-3 vs Ohio St and Georgia. Why in the heck would you put Texas above them when they literally lost to them 3 times? And now have a depleted roster.
It's the same concept, over rating of recruits, completely ignoring they lost to Georgia 2x last year, yet put them above Georgia. I think it is just stupidity.
This post was edited on 8/4/25 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:06 pm to Saunson69
quote:
Why Texas A&M and Texas have 1 Nati in 55 years despite some top recruiting classes
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:07 pm to Saunson69
Idk about any of that.
1. The top 50 talent in Texas isn’t evenly split down the middle between our 2 schools.
2. There are 4 other P4 schools in state. Baylor, Tech, TCU, SMU.
3. When the air raid took over Texas HS football, the best most athletic players wanted to play offense. The defensive stud numbers started dropping.
4. Blue bloods or big names from every conference recruit Texas kid top talent hard. We have to compete with Sooner coming in (Dallas), Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, Miami, FSU, etc.
5. Recruiting class rankings are subjective. You have to look at the point average thing to see if you brought in quality or quantity. 1 5 star, 5 4 stars, and 25 3 stars is still a Top 10 class by most metrics.
1. The top 50 talent in Texas isn’t evenly split down the middle between our 2 schools.
2. There are 4 other P4 schools in state. Baylor, Tech, TCU, SMU.
3. When the air raid took over Texas HS football, the best most athletic players wanted to play offense. The defensive stud numbers started dropping.
4. Blue bloods or big names from every conference recruit Texas kid top talent hard. We have to compete with Sooner coming in (Dallas), Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, Miami, FSU, etc.
5. Recruiting class rankings are subjective. You have to look at the point average thing to see if you brought in quality or quantity. 1 5 star, 5 4 stars, and 25 3 stars is still a Top 10 class by most metrics.
This post was edited on 8/4/25 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:08 pm to JayAg
quote:
Idk about any of that.
It's sheer statistics. There's no subjectivity about the analysis above.
Recruiting services have them at 77% above national average, yet NFL players are just 9% above national average. They are vastly overrated, probably more than any other state in US. If you can find another state doing the math above that has a bigger Top 200 recruits per capita, but less NFL players per capita, I'd be pretty surprised. Maybe California would have a chance at that.
This post was edited on 8/5/25 at 2:00 am
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:18 pm to Saunson69
Good thing Sark recruits heavily out of state.
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:18 pm to JayAg
Think about it, Why in the hell would preseason rankings have Texas above Georgia when they literally lost to them 2x last year, and Texas lost more players than Georgia. And why would they have Texas above Ohio St when they literally lost to Ohio St last year?
It's the same thing in recruiting, classic over rating. Same thing in 2010s. Texas preseason Top 5 or 10, only to finish 6-6. Same thing for TAMU a few years back, although recently TAMU hasn't gotten Top 10 preseasons.
This is not rocket science, and if you can't see it, then that means you are likely a fan of a team in Texas.
It's the same thing in recruiting, classic over rating. Same thing in 2010s. Texas preseason Top 5 or 10, only to finish 6-6. Same thing for TAMU a few years back, although recently TAMU hasn't gotten Top 10 preseasons.
This is not rocket science, and if you can't see it, then that means you are likely a fan of a team in Texas.
This post was edited on 8/4/25 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:18 pm to Saunson69
The reason is what I've said for a long time - Texas is too nice and comfortable. There's talented kids here, but at the end of the day, they don't have the drive to escape the hell hole that is some of the other SEC states. If football doesn't work out, they'll have a great life back at home.
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:25 pm to Saunson69
quote:
Why in the heck would you put Texas above them when they literally lost to them 3 times?
Ok, I see it. This is not about facts and figures and exercising your degree in engineering.
This is about your inability to suppress your emotions that some CFB coaches voted.
I have an excellent way of solving the who should be rated where thing.
Play out the season and see who wins.
This post was edited on 8/4/25 at 11:42 pm
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:25 pm to Projectpat
quote:
The reason is what I've said for a long time - Texas is too nice and comfortable. There's talented kids here, but at the end of the day, they don't have the drive to escape the hell hole that is some of the other SEC states. If football doesn't work out, they'll have a great life back at home.
I think, in general, Texas high school football being so big leads to Texas kids receiving better coaching, better facilities, equipment, etc.
This leads to them reaching their ceiling in high school quicker vs some random kid from podunk Mississippi who still has a high ceiling for improvement.
Recruiting rankings are generally built around potential, but if a kid is already near his developmental ceiling coming into college, then he'll appear to be overrated.
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:37 pm to SidewalkTiger
He’s saying that Ole Miss can’t field a team of 100% Mississippi kids, or LSU have 100% Louisiana kids, and win it all. I think he said only Texas, Florida, and Cali have top talent.
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:38 pm to Saunson69
quote:
Why in the heck would you put Texas above them when they literally lost to them 3 times? And now have a depleted roster.
You think Texas has a depleted roster?
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:49 pm to Saunson69
Wrong. Its culture and coaching. OU gets a lot of tx players and could have 5 or 6 titles since 99 if just a few breaks went our way. Sure, they didn’t win it all but they were there at the end over many other teams. My point is the talent is all over the country but you have to have right culture and coaching.
Posted on 8/4/25 at 11:57 pm to Saunson69
The polls are splitting hairs right now. Doesn't matter if it's uga, osu, Texas, or another team they are all lumped together at the top of rankings. At this point whats the difference? And there’s a lot people put into rankings other than this team beat that team last year.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 12:10 am to OU Guy
Sooner doesn’t really recruit all Texas hard. They have had Dallas/FW locked for many years. A&M predominantly recruits the golden triangle and East Texas hard. horn recruits central Texas, Austin area for talent hard. A few kids from outside our zones. And supplement that with national out of state kids.
These non Texas guys assume we are all recruiting every corner of the state, which is far from true. It’s kind of already divided.
These non Texas guys assume we are all recruiting every corner of the state, which is far from true. It’s kind of already divided.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 12:33 am to OU Guy
quote:
My point is the talent is all over the country but you have to have right culture and coaching.
100% agree. It's always about coaching. With the wrong coach it doesn't matter how successful a program is at talent acquisition. The right coach finds a way to be competitive regardless of circumstances. If the situation is bad enough, they get the heck out of dodge. Wilkinson, Switzer, and Stoops were all timers. Gary Gibbs and John Blake? Not so much.
I'm a Texas fan, so I'm biased and am hoping for OU to fail, but regardless I have serious questions about how Venables is running the program.
For Texas, it all comes down to making bad coaching hires.
I do believe players get a bump for being recruited by Texas just because.
I also agree with the above post that Texas high school has transitioned from being about running the ball and tough defenses designed to stop the run to spread offenses passing the ball all over the field and putting together defenses that can slow those offenses down effectively.
When I was growing up Texas HS hardly ever produced a top quarterback, but there was a legendary running back being produced almost every year. Now the state produces a slew of QBs. Sometimes it feels like a couple dozen Div I schools have a Texas HS quarterback at the helm, even when they have to take a circuitous route to get there, like John Mateer did.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 1:02 am to Eldodroptop
Are you referring to Ed Orgeron?
Posted on 8/5/25 at 1:54 am to Eldodroptop
quote:
Ok, I see it. This is not about facts and figures and exercising your degree in engineering.
Only reason I said it was to give merit to the post and people not think I'm full of shite, but the concept laid out isn't really that hard to understand. I think most could understand it.
What is your per capita of 4 stars and 5 stars vs national average? What is your per capita of NFL players vs national average? They should generally equal each other. If your per capita of 4 stars and 5 stars vs national average is 62% higher than your per capita of NFL players vs national average, that means that the recruiting services think your high school/college players are way better than what NFL teams think.
And generally, NFL teams are going to be more accurate at scouting players than On3 or ESPN recruiting staff. Plus, not many will draft a 5 star that had 80 yards receiving in a 4 year career, so that aspect of having college production, that On3 doesn't have when rating High School Sophomores, helps NFL teams assess talent better than On3 or 247.
This post was edited on 8/5/25 at 2:21 am
Posted on 8/5/25 at 1:56 am to ColtRange
quote:
You think Texas has a depleted roster?
You think Texas doesn't have a depleted roster? They lost 12 to the draft and probably some additional finish their 4 or 5 years. If that isn't depleted, then I don't know what would be.
This post was edited on 8/5/25 at 2:10 am
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News