Of the 33 5 star recruits according to Rivals...

[BermudaSooner]

not one of them signs with a Big XII school.

That is amazing to me.

Yeah, yeah, stars don't mean anything..blah blah, but the fact remains that these are the kids that most coaches would agree are the best players in the nation. Lots of these kids were recruited by OU..and UT...and neither of us got 1 of them. Bama got at least 3 and probably 4.

[Curly Bill]

Ole Miss broke out the checkbook this year to get what...3 of em? Of course Bama and USuC are gonna get their's, but Ole Miss???

[badger]

We only have 10 schools in our conference now. The odds are not in our favor as much as 12-team, 14-team or however-many-teams-the-ACC-has-now... conference.

[Curly Bill]

Texas not landing any is the shocker because they were always gonna land a couple of the 5-stars outta Texas. Apparently the Texas HS kids wised up enough to realize the suckitude that is Mack Brown and company, and said: no thanks!

[Soonerjeepman]

but, but...we got what we wanted...right?

I "agree"..stars don't really mean too much SOMETIMES..but honestly these kids are ranked by lots of folks who have an idea about raw talent.

Yes, I'm a little frustrated we have no 5 star guys, few 4 star guys...guys that were offered by a lot of smaller lesser schools than OU. but it is what it is..we'll see how that turns out next fall (or a yr or 2 away).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Do you think it might have something to do with the location of said 5 stars? There were only 2 kids on border states with us or Texas.

[badger]

Do you think it might have something to do with the location of said 5 stars? There were only 2 kids on border states with us or Texas.

very good point, but i would also credit the fall of whorn for them not having any 5-stars. In the dark ages, just being a Texas commit made you a 5-star

[Curly Bill]

Do you think it might have something to do with the location of said 5 stars? There were only 2 kids on border states with us or Texas.

Yup, I was thinking there wasn't as many 5-stars regionally located this year, but didn't wanna look it up.

[picasso]

I say we start signing 30, whether we have them or not.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Yup, I was thinking there wasn't as many 5-stars regionally located this year, but didn't wanna look it up.

One of them signed with Ohio State and the other is undecided. That was about as deeply as I looked.

[Curly Bill]

One of them signed with Ohio State and the other is undecided. That was about as deeply as I looked.

Mike Mitchell woulda been a great get for us! I know some guys that coached against him this year.

[One4OU]

I say we start signing 30, whether we have them or not.

Why? Do we need more 2 stars?

[sooner KB]

Of the top 300 recruits, 35 went to the entire Big XII. 10 went to Ole Miss.

[picasso]

Why? Do we need more 2 stars?

Ba-dump, crash!

If you offer more you do have a better chance of finding some good players no?

[One4OU]

Why? Do we need more 2 stars?

Ba-dump, crash!

If you offer more you do have a better chance of finding some good players no?

I would agree that would seem to be reasonable thinking but I dont think it would have been validated this year. We could have offered 20 more scholarships this year and I dont think our class rating would be much different other than having some more players.

[soonercastor]

Regardless of the (ir)relevance of stars, it shows you what conferences kids want to play in these days...and that's not in the Big 12

[badger]

Of the top 300 recruits, 35 went to the entire Big XII. 10 went to Ole Miss.
Mean things to say about Ole Miss... Academics are unimportant when you only intend to stay 3 years. Thank gawd for Mississippi being ranked 50th in everything so the other 49 states look better...Recruits must like going to schools that lose six games in a season... I think the KKK is going to stage another campus protest to include "The South Will Rise Again" in that thing their band does... now celebrate your school's sole recruiting superiority by chanting your 14-team conference's name!

[FaninAma]

The number of 4 star recruits signing with Big 12 schools was down, too. I think it's a matter of national perception at the HS level and the product this league is putting on the field is not resonating with recruits. Texas should never, ever have problems with recruiting.

[sooner KB]

Regardless of the (ir)relevance of stars, it shows you what conferences kids want to play in these days...and that's not in the Big 12

And regardless of how accurate the star rating system may or may not be, it's pretty obvious that OU just had a weaker class this year than normal. I know the meme on this board now is that our coaches are changing philosophies and going after "good ole' hard nosed blue collar kids that just wanna play" that may not have great physical measurables. It's just a way though for a lot of fans on this board to help comfort themselves with the notion that things may not be going our way the way they want it to.

Look, it's not all doom and gloom or anything like that. If we get Johnson and Moore we'll have a pretty decent class. It's just so blatantly obvious how some fans are just in total denial. When you have two mediocre seasons where you don't go to BCS bowls, your recruiting goes down. It's not rocket science. Like Curly Bill said, it's going to come down to coaching and if they can coach our team up even though there may be slight talent deficits as compared to a lot of SEC schools.

[SicEmBaylor]

not one of them signs with a Big XII school.

That is amazing to me.

Yeah, yeah, stars don't mean anything..blah blah, but the fact remains that these are the kids that most coaches would agree are the best players in the nation. Lots of these kids were recruited by OU..and UT...and neither of us got 1 of them. Bama got at least 3 and probably 4.

Robbie Rhodes signed with us and is a 5* WR.

[cleller]

At least it will be interesting to watch Ole Miss try to claw its way up in the SEC. Hugh Freeze has given the place a jolt of excitement and hope like Stoops did here in 1999. My impression is that his teams and recruits want to come there to play in the SEC, yet play for a coach that they actually like. He's also obviously a good, up and coming coach.
They will still get plenty of attention from NFL scouts, play for a team with some history, and go to school on a beautiful campus in a pretty nice town. Never been to Tuscaloosa, but Oxford MS is a much nicer place to be than Baton Rouge.

[badger]

I bet Ed Orgeron got Ole Miss fans fired up with his recruiting shtick too. Of course, he never got them a 7-6 season like Hugh Freeze did last year (yippee?)

[sooner KB]

Robbie Rhodes signed with us and is a 5* WR.

And Baylor stole some good DL recruit away from Texas. Just the fact that Baylor is now are main recruiting nemesis just shows how down ours and other Big 12 teams' recruiting is now.

[badger]

good on baylor. bout time they stopped accepting bowl payout welfare from the rest of the big 12 :P

[SicEmBaylor]

And Baylor stole some good DL recruit away from Texas. Just the fact that Baylor is now are main recruiting nemesis just shows how down ours and other Big 12 teams' recruiting is now.
We had a pretty good recruiting class.

[8timechamps]

Texas not landing any is the shocker because they were always gonna land a couple of the 5-stars outta Texas. Apparently the Texas HS kids wised up enough to realize the suckitude that is Mack Brown and company, and said: no thanks!

Yep. This is the first time Texas has actually had a bad class as a result of sub-par play. By my estimation, Mack has exactly one year to right the ship.

[VA Sooner]

I was surprised by Texas' lack of "star-power" recruits this year.

[goingoneight]

There's a BIIIG difference between Texas now and the Texas who was landing everybody they wanted in the early 2000s. No matter how much Mack butters up to them and tried to explain away their bad seasons, they've now suffered three in-a-row. Same for the BIG 12... it's a vastly different landscape now. We got into the MNC game in 2004 because many were saying we played in a tougher conference than Auburn. Any chance in hell at that happening now? The short answer is "**** no."

Bowl game collapses, the BIG 12 instability, the dominance of the SEC, traditional rivals either sucking or bailing on the conference... all those things are additional hurdles to jump now if you're recruiting. It's not excuses, it's reality. What do we have to offer a bunch of five star guys that the SEC programs don't have? Remember before answering that question what Barry Switzer said--

"Kids don't know or give a damn who Barry Switzer or Bud Wilkinson are. They want what's flashy and new. They want what they see and hear on TV."

Oklahoma still has as much or more to offer than most of the rest of the country; but we're not just in some mode now where we can hand-pick whoever we want. Winning an MNC if not just beginning to win on the big stage more often would change that dramatically, though. I guarantee you any good coach competing with Stoops for a recruit told said kid about Kansas State, Notre Dame and A&M last year as well as pointing out OU's flaws in the BCS the last decade.

[goingoneight]

Yep. This is the first time Texas has actually had a bad class as a result of sub-par play. By my estimation, Mack has exactly one year to right the ship.

I'll be honest, I'm shocked he's still there. It's safe to say unless something BIG goes down that he'll coach through 2013. He'll be feeling some major heat to "step down" if they're anything less than a 2-loss team going into December and probably fired before season's end if they flirt with 5-7 again.

Remember, this is Texas. They'll want anybody and everybody to interview for that job. They won't make a change right now or wait until next February or anything like that. If they want their Nick Saban/Bob Stoops-type, they're probably already sending out feelers to those kinds of guys already. Call me crazy, but I think that's the job that Bama's Kirby Smart is holding out for. Plenty of good SEC jobs have come available the last few years.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Why in the hell would any top recruit sign with Ole Miss? Yet they got 2 of the top 5 and 3 of the top 20? No ****ing way that is legit

[BermudaSooner]

Robbie Rhodes signed with us and is a 5* WR.

According to rivals he is 4 star.

[SicEmBaylor]

According to rivals he is 4 star.

You're right, 5* Scout/4* Rivals

[OU_Sooners75]

Well, this years class is definitely down. But it isn't a terrible class either.

Keith Ford should be a 5 star.
Casey Walker should be better than a 3 star.

We filled some needs but not all.

Maybe with patton (and hopefully kittle too) whoever takes over the OL can recruit and coach.

Either way. What we did miss this year, we will pick up nect year.

[badger]

Why in the hell would any top recruit sign with Ole Miss? Yet they got 2 of the top 5 and 3 of the top 20? No ****ing way that is legit
yep, i smell death penalty too (because they don't do that to major programs, only minor ones like smu and ole miss heh heh)

[FaninAma]

As much as I hate to say this I will anyway. If both Texas and OU don't get back to the level of competing for national titles on a regualr basis in the next 2-3 years this conference is dead. I think Stoops and OU are capbale of doing that but I am pretty certain Texas won't be able to do it under Mack Brown.

You just cannot replace programs like Nebraska and TAMU with West Virginia and TCU and expect the prestige of the conference to not take a hit.

Boren better find a way to unhitch OU's wagon from that little braying jackass from Stillwater and find a new trailboss to replace Deloss Dodds and Texas or their little wagon train is going to end up in a ditch in the middle of the wilderness.

[PrideMom]

Lot of people didn't want Wes Welker or Sam Bradford.....

[tomtom]

Keith Ford is listed as a 5star at scout.com.

[badger]

Boren better find a way to unhitch OU's wagon from that little braying jackass from Stillwater and find a new trailboss to replace Deloss Dodds and Texas or their little wagon train is going to end up in a ditch in the middle of the wilderness.
The only way is if this conference has no future. Then it's every program for itself

btw, love "little braying jackass in stillwater." gonna find way to use that in future

[jkjsooner]

As much as I hate to say this I will anyway. If both Texas and OU don't get back to the level of competing for national titles on a regualr basis in the next 2-3 years this conference is dead. I think Stoops and OU are capbale of doing that but I am pretty certain Texas won't be able to do it under Mack Brown.

You just cannot replace programs like Nebraska and TAMU with West Virginia and TCU and expect the prestige of the conference to not take a hit.

Boren better find a way to unhitch OU's wagon from that little braying jackass from Stillwater and find a new trailboss to replace Deloss Dodds and Texas or their little wagon train is going to end up in a ditch in the middle of the wilderness.

I agree.

My guess is if Texas keeps losing recruits to A&M they will bolt.

On a related point, A&M better enjoy their little moment of success. Texas can go wherever they want whenever they want. Texas could remove any advantage that A&M has overnight.

I just hope we have options as well.

[badger]

texags would meltdown if another big 12 team got into the sec. it would explode if it was texas

[One4OU]

Lot of people didn't want Wes Welker or Sam Bradford.....

I dont think that people didnt want them but if your recruiting class average is 3 stars then I dont think it bodes well for long term success. You have got to have the 4 star recruits, with a five star here and there, then you can sprinkle in several three stars and hope they can complete the team or have a few guys bust out to be superstars.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Folks can downplay all day long the need for 5 star athletes. Folks can point to Wes Welker and Sam Bradford all day long...those 3 star athletes that become great are not just lying around.

Spurrier said it best: paraphrashing - Basically...it ain't about the X's and O's...it's about the Jims and Joes

In college football today...you need the Jims and Joes...we can poo poo all day long about the how bad the recruiting rankings are...but in order to win the race...you need horses!!!

You want to know why the SEC dominates college football...because they dominate recruiting. The SEC hauled in an amazing 40% of the top 100 recruits. THATS how you stay on top in college football.

The rich keep getting richer.

I like OU's class...but we are not in the same league as a good number of SEC schools...and I only see it getting worse before it gets better.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

And regardless of how accurate the star rating system may or may not be, it's pretty obvious that OU just had a weaker class this year than normal. I know the meme on this board now is that our coaches are changing philosophies and going after "good ole' hard nosed blue collar kids that just wanna play" that may not have great physical measurables. It's just a way though for a lot of fans on this board to help comfort themselves with the notion that things may not be going our way the way they want it to.

Look, it's not all doom and gloom or anything like that. If we get Johnson and Moore we'll have a pretty decent class. It's just so blatantly obvious how some fans are just in total denial. When you have two mediocre seasons where you don't go to BCS bowls, your recruiting goes down. It's not rocket science. Like Curly Bill said, it's going to come down to coaching and if they can coach our team up even though there may be slight talent deficits as compared to a lot of SEC schools.

It isn't a meme, its the fact that the kids we recruited in 1999 and 2000 that were 3*s or less were the core of a national championship team. Every time we've had a "down" year in recruiting, those kids also formed the core of a team that contended for the title.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

It isn't a meme, its the fact that the kids we recruited in 1999 and 2000 that were 3*s or less were the core of a national championship team. Every time we've had a "down" year in recruiting, those kids also formed the core of a team that contended for the title.

I guess I need to expand on the why here. IMO, the thing that has hurt us the most over Stoops tenure has been early entrants. We've had teams that have been poised to make a run at the title (2002, 2007, 2008) as well as teams that were just going to be average (2005, 2006) that have lost key personnel that have turned positions of strength into weaknesses.

The problem is that fans have this weird set of values with regards to football:

1. They cheer the kid for leaving early and leaving the gaping hole in the position that should have been filled for another year
2. They do NOT give the coach the benefit of the doubt for the kid leaving early, they expect his replacement to be as good or better
3. They then want the coaches to go out and get the exact type of player who ends up giving you a year of good football before he bails

What I am saying here is that I, personally, am more comfortable with our chances when we have a core of 4 and 5 year players than I am when we are playing with 1 and 2 year players.

The last thing I'm going to mention here is the media cycle. This cycle has the following characteristics ->
1. HS Recruiting stars count as if you had an all-american type year the year before
2. You never get credit for having a great year the year you have it
3. You get credit for having a great year if you had a great year the year before
4. Once you have a great year, you never lose the credit for having it even if you've sucked beans the last 2
5. Kids who have great years are always considered 1st round picks
note - this doesn't count for quarterbacks

[Hornkiller]

I guess I need to expand on the why here. IMO, the thing that has hurt us the most over Stoops tenure has been early entrants. We've had teams that have been poised to make a run at the title (2002, 2007, 2008) as well as teams that were just going to be average (2005, 2006) that have lost key personnel that have turned positions of strength into weaknesses.

The problem is that fans have this weird set of values with regards to football:

1. They cheer the kid for leaving early and leaving the gaping hole in the position that should have been filled for another year
2. They do NOT give the coach the benefit of the doubt for the kid leaving early, they expect his replacement to be as good or better
3. They then want the coaches to go out and get the exact type of player who ends up giving you a year of good football before he bails


Problem is guys like Sabin and Miles keep getting great core players with great players who are only on campus to serve their time before punching their ticket to the NFL. Mark Ingram leaves early, Trent Richardson takes over, Trent Richardson leaves and Eddie Lacy comes in, no drop in productivity.
Now due to the SEC’s socialism attitudes no one seems to notice if Florida, Georgia, Bama or LSU have a 3 loss season, because they usually take it out on some sorry Big 10 team in a bowl. But programs like OU, Ohio State and USC don’t have that luxury. The expectations are reload not rebuild. Stoops knows this.
When I saw then Arkansas coach Houston Nutt talk about needing a year or two to rebuild after 6 seasons and a run at the conference title I mocked the Hog fans by saying you’ll never hear that coming out of Norman. Looking at the last few classes unless there is a Sam Bradford, Rocky Calmus or another hidden gem… it looks like I’m eating my words.

[jkjsooner]

1. They cheer the kid for leaving early and leaving the gaping hole in the position that should have been filled for another year

We're not happy that kids leave early but some of us are happy for the kid. I would have loved it if AD stayed another year but it would have been a dumb move and for his sake I'm glad he moved on.

Wanting every kid to play four years is just selfish.

I quit worrying about kids leaving when Ryan Minor stayed for his senior year, had a subpar year, and fell so far in the draft that he didn't make an NBA team. At that point I started realizing that kids have to do what is best for themselves.



2. They do NOT give the coach the benefit of the doubt for the kid leaving early, they expect his replacement to be as good or better


I can't speak for others but I do. But, anyway, it's not like it was 20 years ago where only the best of the best left early. Every team loses guys early nowadays.

[One4OU]

I dont buy that we are hurt any more or less by early entrants than any other program with great players.

As fans we can predict most of the time who is going to leave early. You dont wait until they are gone to recruit their back up. You are suppose to recruit behind them so it isnt such a hole when they are gone.

I would be more inclined to say our lack of good evaluation and whatever the cause of our horrendous attrition rate is other than nfl entrants; ie injuries, schmitty, home sick etc.

Isnt having a solid backup part of the developing of players that coaches are responsible for?

[Curly Bill]

We know some kids are gonna leave the program early for various reasons, whether they be good ones like the kid is going pro early, to bad ones like the kid just can't hack it here. This just reinforces the importance of recruiting and having as many good players on hand as possible, not to mention the importance of developing players. One of my chief complaints with Stoops has been our reluctance to play backups, at least at some positions (QB chief amongst them), to get some needed experience, not to mention seeing if they have what it takes?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Problem is guys like Sabin and Miles keep getting great core players with great players who are only on campus to serve their time before punching their ticket to the NFL. Mark Ingram leaves early, Trent Richardson takes over, Trent Richardson leaves and Eddie Lacy comes in, no drop in productivity.

While I agree with what you are saying, the problem is that we are not choosing to play the same game as the SEC with regard to oversigning. You can argue whether that is idiotic of us (probably fairly), but if you look at every other "elite" program not in the SEC you see the exact same problems that we have (specifically ND, Mich, Ohio State, USC, etc). Oregon is probably the best example to compare too mainly because they relentlessly recruit to a system, but anyway.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

We know some kids are gonna leave the program early for various reasons, whether they be good ones like the kid is going pro early, to bad ones like the kid just can't hack it here. This just reinforces the importance of recruiting and having as many good players on hand as possible, not to mention the importance of developing players. One of my chief complaints with Stoops has been our reluctance to play backups, at least at some positions (QB chief amongst them), to get some needed experience, not to mention seeing if they have what it takes?

So I see your point, but then again, I also see Stoops' point as well. He treats those extra snaps as more practice time. He probably feels that if a starter gets 90% of the reps in practice, getting 90% of the reps throughout the season is more of the same. He also probably feels that the backup getting 10% of the reps in practice isn't properly prepared to get reps in the game.

Also Stoops is not a coach that worries about next year, but concentrates on this season. This probably has a lot to do with 2005 where he did look to the next season and got burned by the whole bomar fiasco.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I dont buy that we are hurt any more or less by early entrants than any other program with great players. As fans we can predict most of the time who is going to leave early. You dont wait until they are gone to recruit their back up. You are suppose to recruit behind them so it isnt such a hole when they are gone.

This is kind of the oversimplification that I'm talking about. Coaches really only have 2 recruiting classes to replace an early entrant -> After their sophomore year and junior year (which happens to be the year they are gone). This doesn't even get into the issue that you are replacing a young NFL prospect with a younger kid who may or may not be an NFL prospect.

Why is this so? The problem for OU is that we tend to carry about 10 players at any time that aren't going to start which effectively lowers our scholarship limit down to 75. We also like to redshirt around 75% of our freshman class which lowers our scholarship limit down to 58ish. That is barely enough for a 2 deep.

[Scott D]

For as much as this recruiting season is getting bashed for OU, at least we're not Georgia. You know, that Georgia that managed to sign 2 out of the top 15 in state recruits (all 4 and 5 star players). That same Georgia that uses the patented SEC recruiting method of having 32 LOI's faxed in to them. That same Georgia that finished in the top 12 in recruiting solely because they "signed" 32 players.

And thank god we're not K-State....I'd hate to see reactions here if we signed 2 four star players (not including the kid who ended any hope he had of playing college ball by committing armed robbery) and 16 2 star players.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

For as much as this recruiting season is getting bashed for OU, at least we're not Georgia. You know, that Georgia that managed to sign 2 out of the top 15 in state recruits (all 4 and 5 star players). That same Georgia that uses the patented SEC recruiting method of having 32 LOI's faxed in to them. That same Georgia that finished in the top 12 in recruiting solely because they "signed" 32 players.

And thank god we're not K-State....I'd hate to see reactions here if we signed 2 four star players (not including the kid who ended any hope he had of playing college ball by committing armed robbery) and 16 2 star players.

Georgia is kind of the poster child for early entrants. I know that nobody really like Richt, but that guy can't catch a break.

[Scott D]

Georgia is kind of the poster child for early entrants. I know that nobody really like Richt, but that guy can't catch a break.

Well having a friend in the Atlanta area whose son is a "top" recruit for the 2014 class I can see why Georgia has so many problems. She's been keeping me and other friends up with the recruiting process of her son, and basically I'm surprised Georgia ever actually extends offers to any players period.

[One4OU]

I dont buy that we are hurt any more or less by early entrants than any other program with great players. As fans we can predict most of the time who is going to leave early. You dont wait until they are gone to recruit their back up. You are suppose to recruit behind them so it isnt such a hole when they are gone.

This is kind of the oversimplification that I'm talking about. Coaches really only have 2 recruiting classes to replace an early entrant -> After their sophomore year and junior year (which happens to be the year they are gone). This doesn't even get into the issue that you are replacing a young NFL prospect with a younger kid who may or may not be an NFL prospect.

Why is this so? The problem for OU is that we tend to carry about 10 players at any time that aren't going to start which effectively lowers our scholarship limit down to 75. We also like to redshirt around 75% of our freshman class which lowers our scholarship limit down to 58ish. That is barely enough for a 2 deep.


I guess my thought is that while yes replacing a nfl entrant with a decent to good player will have a drop off it doesnt happen at every position. While you will see a drop off at this position shouldnt we see an increase in playing ability at the other positions as well that should help cover this weakness some?

Reloading not rebuilding right????

It also makes it difficult to reload when you have 4 kickers on scholarship.

[8timechamps]

Folks can downplay all day long the need for 5 star athletes. Folks can point to Wes Welker and Sam Bradford all day long...those 3 star athletes that become great are not just lying around.

Spurrier said it best: paraphrashing - Basically...it ain't about the X's and O's...it's about the Jims and Joes

In college football today...you need the Jims and Joes...we can poo poo all day long about the how bad the recruiting rankings are...but in order to win the race...you need horses!!!

You want to know why the SEC dominates college football...because they dominate recruiting. The SEC hauled in an amazing 40% of the top 100 recruits. THATS how you stay on top in college football.

The rich keep getting richer.

I like OU's class...but we are not in the same league as a good number of SEC schools...and I only see it getting worse before it gets better.

Here's why I disagree with most of what you're saying; OU has out-recruited Texas A&M 4 of the past 4 years (according to all of the services), yet somehow, someway, A&M not only beat Alabama, but they embarrassed OU in the Cotton Bowl. If landing all of the stud players is the only real way to the top, someone forgot to tell A&M.

Slice it any way you want, it's more about the mix of players a team can bring in than a star rating system. It always has been.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I guess my thought is that while yes replacing a nfl entrant with a decent to good player will have a drop off it doesnt happen at every position. While you will see a drop off at this position shouldnt we see an increase in playing ability at the other positions as well that should help cover this weakness some?

Reloading not rebuilding right????

It also makes it difficult to reload when you have 4 kickers on scholarship.

A) I agree on the kickers. That is a decision I just do not understand

As for the rest...

It is much easier to replace a departing player the older his backup is. So if you have a JR being replaced by a RS SR there is a high likelihood that the SR knows what he is doing even if he is a step down in performance. As fans we probably wouldn't notice a difference because the kid would know where he was supposed to be.

We've had this happen before in 2004 when we lost both of our best DTs (Harris to the draft, Dvoracek to an accident with gamma rays). We had 2 RS SRs behind them that stepped up and filled the hole nicely until the last game of the year.

Conversely it is much harder to replace them when you are replacing them with someone younger. We have done this quite a bit over the years so you can make a pick of them. The general issue is that you are replacing someone with a player that has less experience and because of the nature of the backfill probably less talent.

Where it gets really bad is when you replace an early entrant at a key position with someone younger. The easiest example of this is in 2002 when TGRW was replaced by Bassey. Bassey desperately needed another year (or 2) to take over yet he was forced to play as a redshirt freshman in the the 2nd most important position on our defense. He was further hampered by the fact that we had to replace the most important position in our defense to graduation. Even though he'd played the year before, Lehman was just as inexperienced as he was and has this bad habit of overrunning the play. Had Calmus still been around Bassey probably wouldn't have been as negatively affected. The key here is that losing Williams early forced us to replace the 2 most important pieces of our D and it suffered for it. We had the O for a MNC run, but not the D. Had we had Williams we would have had both.

This is one of the reasons why I'm for a more moderate approach to recruiting than "ALL 5*s". Miami in the early 2000s proved that you can stockpile a ton of no-name talent that can be depleted in 2 years (something like 22 early entrants) and it can cripple your program.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Here's why I disagree with most of what you're saying; OU has out-recruited Texas A&M 4 of the past 4 years (according to all of the services), yet somehow, someway, A&M not only beat Alabama, but they embarrassed OU in the Cotton Bowl. If landing all of the stud players is the only real way to the top, someone forgot to tell A&M.

Slice it any way you want, it's more about the mix of players a team can bring in than a star rating system. It always has been.

And yet, if we had good linebackers and DTs we would have probably won. Although they have really had some good rush ends over the last 5-6 years.

[goingoneight]

Somebody should tell Bob Stoops that a team full of overlooked players can't beat a team full of star-studded players from the recruiting trail. Because he's made a living out of doing just that.

I wonder how many "stars" Florida State had the night they couldn't even fart without Calmus and TRRW breathing down their necks?

I like a big signing day get as much as the next guy... I'm just a realistic guy. Jamarkus McFarland, Stacy McGee, RJ Washington and Tom Wort were all "celebrated" guys. Nothing against them personally, but are we as fans of X's and O's sad to see OU moving on without them?

I've seen countless times where a team with just the right pieces makes a run for it all despite what people think of the talent they have on hand. Bob Stoops has done it multiple times. Kevin Sumlin took what was supposed to be a 2-10 Texas A&M team in the SEC to an 11-2 record and looking like one of the best teams in the country right off the bat at a program who hasn't had that kind of success in a long time. Fresh off of a 7-6 year where he was nearly booed out of Tuscaloosa, Saban went 25-2 in his next two years and got a statue of himself placed there. Give me a 2-star, 3-star, anybody who isn't going to Bomar, Dupree or Jarboe himself out of Norman in the near future and I'll be much more relieved at this point in Stoops's tenure at OU.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Here's why I disagree with most of what you're saying; OU has out-recruited Texas A&M 4 of the past 4 years (according to all of the services), yet somehow, someway, A&M not only beat Alabama, but they embarrassed OU in the Cotton Bowl. If landing all of the stud players is the only real way to the top, someone forgot to tell A&M.

Slice it any way you want, it's more about the mix of players a team can bring in than a star rating system. It always has been.
There is a certainly a bit of truth to the "mix of players"...but, I stand by the simple comment..."It ain't about Xs and O's...it's about the Jims and Joes". Boise State is a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits year in and year out...they have peaked...they cannot go any farther unless they start filling their roster with better recruits

Now...with that being said...finding the Jims and the Joes that are going to progress in college and be good/great players is the key to the entire argument. This is where the Xs and Os are really irrelevant...it is more about the kids and their desire to work hard and be great. I guess it falls into a psuedo psychology arena. Are there kids that think they "have arrived" because they are at OU? Do they think the work is done after HS and the rest will just "come to them"?

Is Saban a better Xs and Os guy than Bob? I think that can be argued either way...but Saban has a HUGE advantage because he is entering the race with better race horses...and he keeps bringing in more

Is Muschamp a better coach than Bob? I seriously doubt that...but if Florida and OU were to play next year...Florida would probably win...better players.

The point of this disussion is that once you are a D1 Head Coach or coordinator...you are damn good at what you do. Sans a few examples this the rule...so it really comes down to players. Spurrier is an excellent example...When he took over at South Carolina his talent level was down...he has recruited his *** off to raise the talent level of his players...and in return, they are winning a ton of games. Is Spurrier a better coach now than he was when he arrived at South Carolina? Nope...maybe different, but not better.

This isn't anything new...eveyone knows that you can be Bear Bryant...but if you ain't got the players...you will get beat...sure, you can get a few upsets along the way...but, for the most part...you are going to lose games

And this year again...the SEC hauled in the talent. It's all about the Jims and Joes.

[goingoneight]

So we're not stockpiling Ndemliches and Mannings. But are we really doubting that the players OU signs are incapable of playing football? I'm not ready to jump to that conclusion yet. If we go four years consecutively getting gashed in the run game, I'd put more merit in the star system. You can't tell me Notre Dame, A&M and Kansas State have consistently hauled in better players than OU, yet they put the pieces together somehow last year. OU won't start raking in the talent without getting back to it's winning ways. See: average star rating in February 1999 and Average Star rating in February 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, etc. That or they start going Auburn/Ole Miss style and we end up Carrol'd in two years.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

There is a certainly a bit of truth to the "mix of players"...but, I stand by the simple comment..."It ain't about Xs and O's...it's about the Jims and Joes". Boise State is a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits year in and year out...they have peaked...they cannot go any farther unless they start filling their roster with better recruits

That has nothing to do with Boise State's teams. The reason they have "peaked" is because of the way that college football heavily favors its "blue bloods". They have had quite a few teams that were good enough to make a game with any of the top 5, but because of the bias against them they never have gotten a chance. Getting better recruits isn't going to do a thing for them, getting a better conference though...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

There is a certainly a bit of truth to the "mix of players"...but, I stand by the simple comment..."It ain't about Xs and O's...it's about the Jims and Joes". Boise State is a team filled with 2 and 3 star recruits year in and year out...they have peaked...they cannot go any farther unless they start filling their roster with better recruits

Now...with that being said...finding the Jims and the Joes that are going to progress in college and be good/great players is the key to the entire argument. This is where the Xs and Os are really irrelevant...it is more about the kids and their desire to work hard and be great. I guess it falls into a psuedo psychology arena. Are there kids that think they "have arrived" because they are at OU? Do they think the work is done after HS and the rest will just "come to them"?

Is Saban a better Xs and Os guy than Bob? I think that can be argued either way...but Saban has a HUGE advantage because he is entering the race with better race horses...and he keeps bringing in more

Is Muschamp a better coach than Bob? I seriously doubt that...but if Florida and OU were to play next year...Florida would probably win...better players.

The point of this disussion is that once you are a D1 Head Coach or coordinator...you are damn good at what you do. Sans a few examples this the rule...so it really comes down to players. Spurrier is an excellent example...When he took over at South Carolina his talent level was down...he has recruited his *** off to raise the talent level of his players...and in return, they are winning a ton of games. Is Spurrier a better coach now than he was when he arrived at South Carolina? Nope...maybe different, but not better.

This isn't anything new...eveyone knows that you can be Bear Bryant...but if you ain't got the players...you will get beat...sure, you can get a few upsets along the way...but, for the most part...you are going to lose games

And this year again...the SEC hauled in the talent. It's all about the Jims and Joes.

Do you even read what we've been posting? Our contention isn't that you don't need good players, our contention is that you can't use high school rankings to determine how good a team is going to be.

In 2000, Texas got all of the "johnnies and the joes" according to the recruiting services. They got the top 3 WRs in the state. One of them set just about every big 12 record there was. We, unfortunately, landed a kid who wasn't even the "3rd best WR on his own team". That kid ended up setting every record at OU and being just a little behind Roy Williams in numbers.

The 2000 WR class from Texas was a monster in terms of players that made an impact. However, when the dust settled, the "re-ranked" class would have been 2, UR, 10, 5, 4 etc. This isn't all that unusual either.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Do you even read what we've been posting? Our contention isn't that you don't need good players, our contention is that you can't use high school rankings to determine how good a team is going to be.

In 2000, Texas got all of the "johnnies and the joes" according to the recruiting services. They got the top 3 WRs in the state. One of them set just about every big 12 record there was. We, unfortunately, landed a kid who wasn't even the "3rd best WR on his own team". That kid ended up setting every record at OU and being just a little behind Roy Williams in numbers.

The 2000 WR class from Texas was a monster in terms of players that made an impact. However, when the dust settled, the "re-ranked" class would have been 2, UR, 10, 5, 4 etc. This isn't all that unusual either.
There is a case that can be made for every rule...as I have said over and over...there are no absolutes.

My point here is that teams that are hauling in the best recruits year in and year out win and win often. Just as OU has done. Rhett Bomar was a 5* QB...unfortunately he had a 1* brain...**** happens...I get it. There are also tons of stories of the ONE kid who was not recruited heavily and he becomes a beast...again...**** happens

And an exception to the rule of hauling a ton of talent and winning can certainly be made for UT...I have said for years that Mack does the least with the most amount of talent year in and year out.

The main point I was trying to make is that the rest of college football is getting their collective asses kicked on the football field and in recruiting by the SEC. The SEC landed 14 of the 33 5* recruits...how will that pan out? Time will tell. Will Ole Miss turn their monster class into wins in such a tough conference? Again time will tell.

And you can use recruiting services as a rule of thumb...just not as the gospel.

2008 Alabama was #1 and ND was #2...seems to me that these rankings aren't that far off.

2009 Alabama, LSU, and Ohio St. were the top 3. Alabama won it all and Ohio St. was undefeated and would have played Bama sans the trouble they got into.

2010 was a bit rough...USC was #1 and Florida # 2...Kiffin is becoming Mack Brown of the west and Florida has had a ton of transfers. UT was #3 further making the case for Mack's lack of producing with a lot of talent.

I think the services are getting better all time, but there will always be flaws. I have always thought, if a university continues to recruit in the top #10 year in and year out they will be fine. You are going to have attrition...the idea is to minimize the damage.

[Sooner in Tampa]

That has nothing to do with Boise State's teams. The reason they have "peaked" is because of the way that college football heavily favors its "blue bloods". They have had quite a few teams that were good enough to make a game with any of the top 5, but because of the bias against them they never have gotten a chance. Getting better recruits isn't going to do a thing for them, getting a better conference though...

Boise State is not and has never been built to withstand the grind of a major conference. I firmly believe if they joined the Big XII they would have at least 4 losses, the B1G would hand them at 3 losses, and the PAC whatever would hand them at least 3 losses.

[SoonerorLater]

Boise State is not and has never been built to withstand the grind of a major conference. I firmly believe if they joined the Big XII they would have at least 4 losses, the B1G would hand them at 3 losses, and the PAC whatever would hand them at least 3 losses.

Amen. I'm not sure why there is even a doubt about any of this. I don't understand how anybody doesn't see the accruacy of Rivals.

Teams with the highest Rivals rated classes are the teams who win championships. Teams with low or mediocre rated classes do not win championships. Rivals is very accurate when you take large numbers over a few years. The evidence is more than compelling. Look at who has won championships then look at where they have been finishing in Rivals recruiting class rankings.

Folks who diminish Rivals value will use the exceptions to prove the rule. Yes there are 5*s like Bomar and 2*s like Jason Pierre-Paul but that is exactly what those are....an exception.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Boise State is not and has never been built to withstand the grind of a major conference. I firmly believe if they joined the Big XII they would have at least 4 losses, the B1G would hand them at 3 losses, and the PAC whatever would hand them at least 3 losses.

Once again, I was stating that Boise State had the talent to run with the big boys in a single game. This has been proven year after year as they beat teams from all of those conferences (including us). Whether you are right or not about what they could do in a major conference I can't say. My point is that when they have been given a "chance" to compete with the big boys they have held their own.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Amen. I'm not sure why there is even a doubt about any of this. I don't understand how anybody doesn't see the accruacy of Rivals.

Teams with the highest Rivals rated classes are the teams who win championships. Teams with low or mediocre rated classes do not win championships. Rivals is very accurate when you take large numbers over a few years. The evidence is more than compelling. Look at who has won championships then look at where they have been finishing in Rivals recruiting class rankings.

Folks who diminish Rivals value will use the exceptions to prove the rule. Yes there are 5*s like Bomar and 2*s like Jason Pierre-Paul but that is exactly what those are....an exception.

I really hope you are getting a free subscription out of this, because at this point I think you are intentionally ignoring everything we are saying and the posting your rah rah stuff.


2008 Alabama was #1 and ND was #2...seems to me that these rankings aren't that far off.

Let's see ( 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) so that would mean that the players in question had to be 5th year seniors.

here is the list of Alabama's 32 players (I recognize one of the 3 stars who is still around)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/alabama-73

here is the list of Notre Dame's players

http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/notredame-104

Given ND doesn't allow redshirts (except medical) I wouldn't be surprised if NONE of them played this year.

So this proves your point how?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

One thing about the rivals rankings that you could statistically prove is the impact of oversigning on team rankings. Rivals has no hard cap on how many points a team can get for oversigning (which is the reason Texas always screams about average stars). Oversigning changes the playing field dramatically. Compared with OU and Texas, Saban basically gets an extra recruiting class every 5 years.

[smackramensooner]

The anti-Boise bunch needs to check some NFL rosters. Apparently NFL coaches and GMs aren't getting the memo that Boise players only appear good because of their weak schedules.

Doug Moore played in the pro bowl. Pettis, Young, Clady, and their CB from the last few seasons are all starting and contributing in pretty significant ways. If Kellen Moore was taller than 5'8"...

Anyway, the point is those Boise teams that beat Oregon and Georgia in their own backyards may have been as good as those 1 game samples showed. Sure they would have dropped some games due to lack of depth in a tough conference. I would argue though that no team wanted a piece of them in a bowl game at the end of the year though.

[One4OU]

How may crystals balls did Boise win? Their history is a fart in the wind compared to ours.

The point is you got to have better players. Their coaching my be good their players are decent but they're still not going to win a national title ever.

[jkjsooner]

I agree that the criticism of scouting services is ridiculous. Of course they miss on guys but so does every coach out there.

That being said, I don't think coaches care how many stars a kid has. They do their own evaluations. Of course their evaluations often match with the star rankings but often don't.

It's true that getting more stars will show a statistical correlation to winning but a great talent evaluator can overcome deficiencies in highly ranked players. If I had to pick kids at random I'd get the most stars I could but coaches don't do that.

Great coaches can win by identifying those 3 star guys others miss on. Usually those coaches are hired away by teams that can get 4 and 5 star guys but some like Snyder stay around and continually find talent.

So to summarize, everyone here is correct except the ones who flat out dismiss the rankings.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

How may crystals balls did Boise win? Their history is a fart in the wind compared to ours.

The point is you got to have better players. Their coaching my be good their players are decent but they're still not going to win a national title ever.

I don't think I'd be quite as sure if I were you. Once college football rolls out to an 8 team playoff, most of these really good smaller schools will get a chance and one of them will break through.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

So to summarize, everyone here is correct except the ones who flat out dismiss the rankings.

Personally, my issue is people claiming doom and gloom before they step on the field. Second, it is 100% valid to dismiss the rankings at positions where they have PROVEN to suck at predicting players *cough*DT*cough*

[8timechamps]

Recruiting services are great for learning about a kid. That's completely different than ranking/rating a kid.

Every year, there are a group of kids that stand out from the rest. It doesn't take a expert to identify those kids. Those are the 5 star recruits, and every school in the country was after them long before a service deemed them "elite".

After that, it's part methodology, part guess work. Recruiting services don't have a magical insight into these players. If they miss rank/rate a player that garners interest from a big time program, guess what happens? The suddenly move up in the rankings or get an extra star next to their name. This happens countless times every year. That alone should give you an idea about how inexact the ranking/rating of players is, and prove that the recruiting services are no better than the coaching staffs.

Recruiting services exist for the fans of the game. They are in the business to make money. The college football world would continue at it's present pace with or without them.

I'm a fan of recruiting, and I am far more involved than the average fan. I do not pay for any service, but I do use them to research kids. So, I like that the information is easily available, but I also know there are many ways to get the same information if you really want to find it.

The bottom line for me is that the recruiting services class rankings mean squat. They don't factor in what each team needs, or how many scholarships each team has to give. They factor only the star ranking they assign each player. Since the ranking system for each player is a big guessing game, it stands to reason that any list that includes that system as a barometer, is certainly no more reliable than the system used to rank players. Only it doesn't account for any of the aforementioned information.

Fun? Sure. Accurate? Not to a level that I would rely on the information, if I were a coach.

[SoonerorLater]

I really hope you are getting a free subscription out of this, because at this point I think you are intentionally ignoring everything we are saying and the posting your rah rah stuff.



Let's see ( 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) so that would mean that the players in question had to be 5th year seniors.

here is the list of Alabama's 32 players (I recognize one of the 3 stars who is still around)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/alabama-73

here is the list of Notre Dame's players

http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/notredame-104

Given ND doesn't allow redshirts (except medical) I wouldn't be surprised if NONE of them played this year.

So this proves your point how?

I am not ignoring what is said I just don't agree. I'm not sure how anything I said could be shown to be wrong. Over the last 10 years no team that has won a national championship has not had extremely high rated classes by Rivals. It's not rah rah. It's a historical fact.

[SoonerorLater]

One thing about the rivals rankings that you could statistically prove is the impact of oversigning on team rankings. Rivals has no hard cap on how many points a team can get for oversigning (which is the reason Texas always screams about average stars). Oversigning changes the playing field dramatically. Compared with OU and Texas, Saban basically gets an extra recruiting class every 5 years.

On this I agree. Another reason why I think Rivals is such a good predictor of on field success.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I am not ignoring what is said I just don't agree. I'm not sure how anything I said could be shown to be wrong. Over the last 10 years no team that has won a national championship has not had extremely high rated classes by Rivals. It's not rah rah. It's a historical fact.

so we'll call "highly rated" as top 5. Probably should be more than one class in that range honestly, but 1 class of freshman shouldn't count.

2000 - OU - No
2001 - Miami - No
2002 - Ohio State - Their freshman class was #5 though only Clarrett and Holmes played that year
2003 - LSU - Once more their Freshman class was #1 no idea how many played (Vincent did)
2004 - USC - Yep
2005 - Texas - Yep
2006 - Florida - 2003 and 2006 (interesting note, most of the teams have had high classes the year of their NC)
2007 - LSU - 2004 and 2007 (2 classes in a row with SRs and FR high classes)
2008 - Florida - Yes
2009 - Alabama - 2008/2009 - (60 recruits over 2 years wow)
2010 - Auburn - 2010 - (back to freshman and cam newton) - 32 recruits
2011 - Alabama - All
2012 - Alabama - All

So you can say it is historical fact, but I just have a hard time giving credit when 2-3 players out of a "highly touted" class actually CONTRIBUTE to the winning season.

[One4OU]

[/QUOTE]
I don't think I'd be quite as sure if I were you. Once college football rolls out to an 8 team playoff, most of these really good smaller schools will get a chance and one of them will break through.[/QUOTE]

I think it will be opposite of your prediction. Asking Boise State or any other team of that stature to now win multiple games against top tiered teams is more unlikely to happen than playing an easy schedule and having a one game title match.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't think I'd be quite as sure if I were you. Once college football rolls out to an 8 team playoff, most of these really good smaller schools will get a chance and one of them will break through.[/QUOTE]

I think it will be opposite of your prediction. Asking Boise State or any other team of that stature to now win multiple games against top tiered teams is more unlikely to happen than playing an easy schedule and having a one game title match.[/QUOTE]

You are discounting just how good some of these lower tiered teams like pre-pac 12 Utah and Boise State were. This isn't about teams like northern Illinois this year, this is about senior laden teams that had multiple NFL players on their rosters. Specifically that Utah team that destroyed Alabama.

[8timechamps]

I think it will be opposite of your prediction. Asking Boise State or any other team of that stature to now win multiple games against top tiered teams is more unlikely to happen than playing an easy schedule and having a one game title match.

You are discounting just how good some of these lower tiered teams like pre-pac 12 Utah and Boise State were. This isn't about teams like northern Illinois this year, this is about senior laden teams that had multiple NFL players on their rosters. Specifically that Utah team that destroyed Alabama.



Also, I'm not sure the "conference grind" argument holds up against some of those Boise teams. I know they didn't have to face stiff competition week in and week out, but those weren't really one hit wonder teams. A lot of those kids are playing in the NFL now. I'm not saying that the current Boise teams are capable of winning out (in a playoff), but some of the teams from the late 2000's could have.

Sorry to digress.