Big 12 Recruiting

[FaninAma]

Looks like it was a down year for the entire league. OU's class finished rated the highest at 15(or higher depending on the Cali. kid). Texas was 23rd. OSU was in the 30's. KSU, the league champion, was somewhere south of that.

I understand that a recruiting class' value cannot be determined until they lace them up and get on the field. I also understand that the rcruiting business is a game of perception and as such it appears that the national perception of the Big 12 is not very good.....at least among HS recruits.

It may be cyclical but I think the PBT at OU(Boren especially) would be doing themselves and the University a disservice by not considering other possible coference affiliations. I do think Boren's hands are tied to a certain extent but he needs to take his political skills and convince whomever he needs to convince in the state capitol that OU cannot be tied to OSU at the hip forever. The big risk for OU is that the Big 12 continues to deterioate in terms of stature and national perception to such a level that it takes several years to get back to a level of prominence in the college football scene.

My biggest concern is that those who support the aggies in Stillwater would prefer to see OU sink into mediocrity along side their program rather than allowing OU to embark on their own to a new conference setting. At some point Boren and his athletic administrative staff have to do what they think is best for OU without regard for how it effects OSU.

Just an opinion offered up for conversation and some perspective after NSD.

[KantoSooner]

FAir enough, but I'd also like to see some serious fire under the coaches and players. I've seen a lot of comfort among both for quite a while.
Maybe instead of annual pay increases, there can be pay reductions if the season did not turn as well as the last. Or they look into what one of my old employers used to call 'Fire For Excellence'. You had the very effective and the gone. there aren't too many professions in which a relatively young man can make $150,000 and up. You ought to be able to motivate him to exert himself for it.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't put too much stock in recruiting rankings. I think any player between 3-5* has the potential to be an all-American with the right attitude, discipline, coaching, and conditioning. Probably a lot of 2*s as well.

[SicEmBaylor]

Big 12 Recruiting Class Ranking for 2013:

1. Oklahoma
2. Texas
3. West Virginia
4. Baylor
5. OK State
6. TCU
7. Kansas
8. Tech
9. Iowa
10. Kansas

[sooner KB]

I don't put too much stock in recruiting rankings. I think any player between 3-5* has the potential to be an all-American with the right attitude, discipline, coaching, and conditioning. Probably a lot of 2*s as well.

It was pointed out by somebody on this board that gave us an article researching this that 5 star players are more likely to become all-american that 4 star players, that 4 star players are more likely to become all-american that 3 star players, etc. Even I crunched some numbers in one of the threads on the recruiting board. Someone posted an article about how over half of Alabama's players that have been drafted were 3-star or lower. I calculated the percentages though and found that 80% of their 5-star players were drafted, 23% of their 4-star players were drafted, and 11% of their 3-star players were drafted.

People are right to point out that a lot of 3-star players turn out good and a lot of it comes down to coaching, but to say the ratings are completely irrelevant is just factually incorrect.

[SicEmBaylor]

It was pointed out by somebody on this board that gave us an article researching this that 5 star players are more likely to become all-american that 4 star players, that 4 star players are more likely to become all-american that 3 star players, etc. Even I crunched some numbers in one of the threads on the recruiting board. Someone posted an article about how over half of Alabama's players that have been drafted were 3-star or lower. I calculated the percentages though and found that 80% of their 5-star players were drafted, 23% of their 4-star players were drafted, and 11% of their 3-star players were drafted.

People are right to point out that a lot of 3-star players turn out good and a lot of it comes down to coaching, but to say the ratings are completely irrelevant is just factually incorrect.

Oh I didn't say they were irrelevant. Obviously a 5* player is more likely to have the skills necessary to succeed than a 2* player; however, what I'm saying is that any of those players have the potential to become an All-American under the right circumstances. Some coaches squander talent and some have a talent for coaching kids up. All and all, I'd rather have a class of 3* recruits and a coaching staff that has a penchant for coaching kids up than have a class of 5* recruits and a coaching staff that has a reputation for squandering talent.

[SoonerorLater]

I don't put too much stock in recruiting rankings. I think any player between 3-5* has the potential to be an all-American with the right attitude, discipline, coaching, and conditioning. Probably a lot of 2*s as well.

Perhaps you should re-examine that line of thought. Alabama has topped Rivals recruiting 5 of the last 6 years. They have won 3 out of the last 4 BCS Championships. Just a coincidence?

[SicEmBaylor]

Perhaps you should re-examine that line of thought. Alabama has topped Rivals recruiting 5 of the last 6 years. They have won 3 out of the last 4 BCS Championships. Just a coincidence?
Not at all -- they have a stellar coaching staff. Go back and read my last post. Take those same recruits and give them to Mack Brown and Co. and they wouldn't be sniffing a national championship.

[SoonerorLater]

Not at all -- they have a stellar coaching staff. Go back and read my last post. Take those same recruits and give them to Mack Brown and Co. and they wouldn't be sniffing a national championship.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Yes, having a top recruiting class doesn't guarantee a championship but not having a top tier class means you won't win. Just look back over the last ten years. No team that didn't have big time recruits has won the BCS.

[sooner KB]

Not at all -- they have a stellar coaching staff. Go back and read my last post. Take those same recruits and give them to Mack Brown and Co. and they wouldn't be sniffing a national championship.

And move their coaching staff to New Mexico State and their is no way they come even close to winning any national championships. Coaching is important, but it's the players that go out and execute.

[8timechamps]

To the OP by Faninama, I do think being in the Big XII has cost OU a recruit or two in the past few years. However, I don't think there is another team (outside of the SEC) in the country that can one up OU because of conference affiliation. So, unless OU joins the SEC, I don't think there's anything that can be done to change that right now.

[SicEmBaylor]

And move their coaching staff to New Mexico State and their is no way they come even close to winning any national championships. Coaching is important, but it's the players that go out and execute.
True enough and point taken. Still, all the talent in the world just doesn't do much good if they aren't properly coached.

However, I suppose Tubberville*, Chizik, and Mack are examples of how talent over coaching won them a NC.

(I only included Tubbs because he did have an undefeated season)

[FaninAma]

I don't put too much stock in recruiting rankings. I think any player between 3-5* has the potential to be an all-American with the right attitude, discipline, coaching, and conditioning. Probably a lot of 2*s as well.
I don't disagree. My point was directed more at the national perception of the Big 12 as a less desirable destination than other BCS conferences.

[LHSooner]

And move their coaching staff to New Mexico State and their is no way they come even close to winning any national championships. Coaching is important, but it's the players that go out and execute.

To paraphrase St. Barry: It's the Jimmy's and the Joe's, not the X's and the O's.

[SicEmBaylor]

To paraphrase St. Barry: It's the Jimmy's and the Joe's, not the X's and the O's.

So if I had a team of 5* recruits, I could coach them to a national championship? I'm pretty good at coaching college ball on my xbox.

I would never punt....ever.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Looks like it was a down year for the entire league. OU's class finished rated the highest at 15(or higher depending on the Cali. kid). Texas was 23rd. OSU was in the 30's. KSU, the league champion, was somewhere south of that.

I understand that a recruiting class' value cannot be determined until they lace them up and get on the field. I also understand that the rcruiting business is a game of perception and as such it appears that the national perception of the Big 12 is not very good.....at least among HS recruits.

It may be cyclical but I think the PBT at OU(Boren especially) would be doing themselves and the University a disservice by not considering other possible coference affiliations. I do think Boren's hands are tied to a certain extent but he needs to take his political skills and convince whomever he needs to convince in the state capitol that OU cannot be tied to OSU at the hip forever. The big risk for OU is that the Big 12 continues to deterioate in terms of stature and national perception to such a level that it takes several years to get back to a level of prominence in the college football scene.

My biggest concern is that those who support the aggies in Stillwater would prefer to see OU sink into mediocrity along side their program rather than allowing OU to embark on their own to a new conference setting. At some point Boren and his athletic administrative staff have to do what they think is best for OU without regard for how it effects OSU.

Just an opinion offered up for conversation and some perspective after NSD.

Yes. Many of us here pointed that out last year and the year before. And, the conference we should be in now is the SEC, who would have taken us in a heartbeat over Texas A&M or Mizzou.

Here is what people fail to understand:
(1) Because we and Texas make more money than the rest of the conference, the PTB could give a rip about competition...which leads to better bowls, recruiting, perception, etc.
(2) SEE #1

Boren is not going to fire Castiglione. Castiglione is not going to fire Stoops. Stoops is not going to fire anyone.

We and Texas are raking in money, and that is all that counts now. It will be that way until Texas decides - yes, until Texas decides - to leave the Big 12.

We haven't tied ourselves to the hip with Oklahoma State. We've tied ourselves to the hip with Texas, and not for competition's sake, but for money.

DeLoss Dodd will decide how long the Big 12 plays out. He got it significantly weaker by trading out Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado, and A&M for TCU and West Virginia, both of whom suck royally.

No one fights us and Texas for more of the money now because the rest of the schools are just happy to be included. It's pathetic.

One season of this 10 team garbagey Big 12 and we're stealing defensive line recruits from North Texas on one end and having an LB decommit to Tulsa on the other. It's stupid.

And, yesterday...yesterday, the sale was on, though. Got the e-mail for Spring Game tickets.

Money, money, money. It's not about competition anymore here are anywhere else in the Big 12.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Also, the very idea that Boren has any control whatsoever is preposterous. The Pac-12 showed us how much clout Boren has on his own when Texas dropped out of the deal. And, that after Boren and Castiglione had filled Stoops up with so much crap that he was out in front of the media saying that losing the Texas game would be no big deal.

Boren. Give me a break. He had no idea that the Pac-12 was in it for Texas or nothing all along. He got stiffed by his "better academics" colleagues to the west. What a joke.

[cleller]

Perhaps you should re-examine that line of thought. Alabama has topped Rivals recruiting 5 of the last 6 years. They have won 3 out of the last 4 BCS Championships. Just a coincidence?


Not at all -- they have a stellar coaching staff. Go back and read my last post. Take those same recruits and give them to Mack Brown and Co. and they wouldn't be sniffing a national championship.


And move their coaching staff to New Mexico State and their is no way they come even close to winning any national championships. Coaching is important, but it's the players that go out and execute.

When you stir in all in together, The Bamas/SEC types have both the top players and (arguably) the top coaches. By most formulas that adds up to being the big winners.

To ponder now what would be different had OU went to the SEC is interesting. At the time it seemed way-out and kinda treacherous. In the short term it would have looked like a big mistake, probably. We'd have got banged around some, for sure.
But would the long-range picture have been better? Would recruiting be better? Maybe. Probably.

[FaninAma]

I personally feel that if either Texas or Oklahoma(the 2 flagship football programs in the conference) do not regain some footing in terms of being in the thick of the national title race over the next 2 years this conference is dead. Sorry, but KSU, OSU, Baylor and even West Virginia just do not have the tradition or national following that these 2 programs do and will never be able to lift up the overall stature of the conference.

I like Boren and think he has done a fine job in many areas but he screwed the pooch on the conference realignment issue a couple of years ago.

[Mac94]

I personally feel that if either Texas or Oklahoma(the 2 flagship football programs in the conference) do not regain some footing in terms of being in the thick of the national title race over the next 2 years this conference is dead. Sorry, but KSU, OSU, Baylor and even West Virginia just do not have the tradition or national following that these 2 programs do and will never be able to lift up the overall stature of the conference.

I like Boren and think he has done a fine job in many areas but he screwed the pooch on the conference realignment issue a couple of years ago.

The worst thing for OU was when the Pac-16 deal fell through .... and the Pac-16 was never gonna happen with the LHN in play.

Sadly, this conference is becoming an SWC 2.0 conference. Back then the SWC and Big-8 had the same problem in the new age of ESPN and conferecne TV contracts ... to much "dead weight" to garner the revenue other conferences were receiving. The old Big-8 was long considered a "Big 2" conference with those two teams historically OU and Nebraska. The SWC was the same with the two being Texas and Arkansas. Both Colorado and A&M had emerged on the scene but OU and Texas were down and Arkansas had already bolted for the SEC. The hope in the shotgun marriage of the Big-12 was that Nebraksa, Colorado, Texas A&M along with down but historic blueblood schools Texas and Oklahoma would be marketable to survive in the new landscape.

For the first 10 plus years of the conference things on the surface worked out okay although there were fractures under the surface that had existed from the very beginning (Texas vs Nebraska). But ... we all know what has happened. And now the new Big-12 is back to a "Big 2" problem that plagued the old leagues. The sad truth is that Iowa St., Baylor, TCU, Kansas, etc bring little to the table football wise. They may have good years but they just aren;t marketable nationally. And while Kansas State may be good for now they have long term viability issues. They are one of the historically worst programs in the FBS and their current success is tied to one man in his 70's. We've already seen attempt one of a post Snyder KSU and it wasn't pretty.

This league in its current form cannot last long term. Something will have to give at some point and I think everyone knows it ... the question is ... how much damage with Oklahoma and Texas suffer in the meantime?

[SoonerorLater]

To me the evidence is overwhelming. According to Rivals 6 of the last 10 rated recruiting classes have been SEC teams. Not coincientally IMO 8 of the last 10 BCS championships have been won by SEC Teams. And by the way the other 2 teams that won a BCS championship in that same period, Texas and USC both having a top rated recruiting class by Rivals.

How can anybody dispute that recruiting highly ranked players (by Rivals) isn't directly correlated to winning championships? I've heard all the 2*, 3*, give me hard nosed, dedicated players, just coach'em up talk, but it just doesn't hold water. Recruiting big time physical talent is the absolute cornerstone of football dominance.

[Tear Down This Wall]

The worst thing for OU was when the Pac-16 deal fell through .... and the Pac-16 was never gonna happen with the LHN in play.

Sadly, this conference is becoming an SWC 2.0 conference. Back then the SWC and Big-8 had the same problem in the new age of ESPN and conferecne TV contracts ... to much "dead weight" to garner the revenue other conferences were receiving. The old Big-8 was long considered a "Big 2" conference with those two teams historically OU and Nebraska. The SWC was the same with the two being Texas and Arkansas. Both Colorado and A&M had emerged on the scene but OU and Texas were down and Arkansas had already bolted for the SEC. The hope in the shotgun marriage of the Big-12 was that Nebraksa, Colorado, Texas A&M along with down but historic blueblood schools Texas and Oklahoma would be marketable to survive in the new landscape.

For the first 10 plus years of the conference things on the surface worked out okay although there were fractures under the surface that had existed from the very beginning (Texas vs Nebraska). But ... we all know what has happened. And now the new Big-12 is back to a "Big 2" problem that plagued the old leagues. The sad truth is that Iowa St., Baylor, TCU, Kansas, etc bring little to the table football wise. They may have good years but they just aren;t marketable nationally. And while Kansas State may be good for now they have long term viability issues. They are one of the historically worst programs in the FBS and their current success is tied to one man in his 70's. We've already seen attempt one of a post Snyder KSU and it wasn't pretty.

This league in its current form cannot last long term. Something will have to give at some point and I think everyone knows it ... the question is ... how much damage with Oklahoma and Texas suffer in the meantime?

Agree, 1001%

[Tear Down This Wall]

I personally feel that if either Texas or Oklahoma(the 2 flagship football programs in the conference) do not regain some footing in terms of being in the thick of the national title race over the next 2 years this conference is dead. Sorry, but KSU, OSU, Baylor and even West Virginia just do not have the tradition or national following that these 2 programs do and will never be able to lift up the overall stature of the conference.

I like Boren and think he has done a fine job in many areas but he screwed the pooch on the conference realignment issue a couple of years ago.

Agree, 1001% with this as well. Academics are one thing. But, Boren not seeing that we had a clear path to the SEC is unbelievable.

Mizzou...MIZZOU got into the SEC for crying out loud! Mizzou and their big bag of nothing and basketball coach under NCAA investigation from his days at Miami.

Why does it kill us and Texas so much to share money equally? I mean, who cares? It's not as though we're in the Sun Belt or WAC, barely eaking out an existence, and praying for bowl bids for our occasional 8-4 teams.

Mizzou. Pac-12 dumping us when Texas left.

Freaking Boren. Stay on the academic side, fire Castiglione, and get someone in there who cares about making money and national competition.

Right about now, Rob Base, all we are doing is giving Stoops a raise every year for beating Texas.

[Tear Down This Wall]

To me the evidence is overwhelming. According to Rivals 6 of the last 10 rated recruiting classes have been SEC teams. Not coincientally IMO 8 of the last 10 BCS championships have been won by SEC Teams. And by the way the other 2 teams that won a BCS championship in that same period, Texas and USC both having a top rated recruiting class by Rivals.

How can anybody dispute that recruiting highly ranked players (by Rivals) isn't directly correlated to winning championships? I've heard all the 2*, 3*, give me hard nosed, dedicated players, just coach'em up talk, but it just doesn't hold water. Recruiting big time offensive and defensive line talent is the absolute cornerstone of football dominance.

Fixed.

Barry Switzer on offensive lines: "All running backs look the same on their back."

I shouldn't have to remind everyone of Barry's assessment of the other side of the ball. He gave a pretty honest rendering of our defensive line in the fall that many mistakenly pooh-poohed...until a wide receiver ran for 300+ yards on us.

[cherokeebrewer]

I've heard all the 2*, 3*, give me hard nosed, dedicated players, just coach'em up talk, but it just doesn't hold water.

You normally hear this when recruiting has a down year...It makes us feel better.

[Sabanball]

There's no question that the SEC would have rather had OU than AM or Mizzou, and had David Boren accepted our invitation, taken the long-term view, and followed the will of your fanbase instead of using the bogus academic argument as an excuse not to, I believe you guys would be much in the same position as AM is right now if not more so.

Take a look at these numbers and I have no doubt OU would have been right in the middle of it had you come to the SEC--As of noon yesterday according to Rivals the SEC has the 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12th best recruiting classes in the nation. That's seven of the top 12 classes in the nation. Not to be outdone, 247 Sports has the SEC with the 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 11 classes in the nation. That's seven of the top 11 classes in the nation.

That's downright insane.

But I guess that's what you come to expect when today's current signing classes were in the fifth grade the last time the SEC didn't win the national title.

Seriously, the fifth grade.

As if that wasn't enough Rivals had the SEC with 12 of the top 26 classes in the nation -- 12! -- and 247 Sports had the conference with 11 of the top 26 classes in the country.

I mean, that dominance is flat-out staggering.

Surveying all four of the major recruiting services -- Rivals, 247Sports, Scout, and ESPN -- here's the consensus top 14 classes in the SEC:

1. Alabama

2. Florida

3. Ole Miss

4. LSU

5. Texas A&M

6. Auburn

7. Georgia

8. South Carolina

9. Vanderbilt

10. Mississippi State

11. Tennesseee

12. Arkansas

13. Kentucky

14. Missouri

...

These are the consensus SEC class rankings, and they didn't change that much in the last 24 hrs.

The sobering thought for the rest of college football? This is the best collection of talent the SEC schools have ever signed. Meaning the talent gap between the SEC and the rest of college footbal isn't shrinking-- it's widening. TAMU played a big part in that, and I think had OU been in their place, it would have been even a bigger coup for the conference.

[SoonerMarkVA]

Sabanball, the conventional wisdom was that SEC wouldn't take OSU, and thus why OU wouldn't go SEC. I have to wonder, why the SEC would be willing to bring Mizzou solo, yet consider OSU so undesirable as to leave OU off the table for it? I think from anyone's perspective in the XII, OSU and Mizzou are basically the same--Mizzou higher in academics, OSU higher in athletics, but neither difference worth more than a sniffle of consideration. I understand TV markets and all, but there's little evidence of which I'm aware that STL and KC have any more than a grunt of interest in Mizzou.

[SoonerorLater]

Sabanball, the conventional wisdom was that SEC wouldn't take OSU, and thus why OU wouldn't go SEC. I have to wonder, why the SEC would be willing to bring Mizzou solo, yet consider OSU so undesirable as to leave OU off the table for it? I think from anyone's perspective in the XII, OSU and Mizzou are basically the same--Mizzou higher in academics, OSU higher in athletics, but neither difference worth more than a sniffle of consideration. I understand TV markets and all, but there's little evidence of which I'm aware that STL and KC have any more than a grunt of interest in Mizzou.

I've mentioned this before and I wish I could find the link again. The U.S. TV markets with the greatest percentage of college football viewers tuning in was Birmingham #1 and Tulsa #2. OKC I believe was #5. This has been a few years back but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be radically different today.

I think the Big 12 needs to come together and to determine if what we are seeing is a definite downtrend developing or if what we are seeing is just a bit of an anomoly. My take is a downtrend at the conference level. The number of highly ranked recruits making choices other than the Big 12 is hard to ignore.

[aero]

Obviously the more higher rated recruits a team can get it would seem the higher probability of success on the field. But I don't think that proves out if you look at past recruiting class rankings versus top 25 order. Seems pretty inconsistent. Of course there are a few teams consistently near the top in both class rankings and top 25 rankings. And there are instances where that one or two players lived up to their ranking and made differences on the field. But I think the teams that are in the top 5 or 10 year in and year out are teams whose coaches are the real difference. They bring the best out of the players they have, they know how to game plan, and they know how to use those players. The media and public gravitate to winners. So do recruits. (well, and then there is ole miss.....)

Seems to me the B12 has evolved into a finesse offense league and the defense has taken a back seat. That's just my opinion from what I've seen in the games overall but it is also the opinion of lots of others across the nation. I'm sure some would argue with stats that the B12 has great defenses. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of defenses I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["good"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the B12 defenses involved in this case is not that."

Teams strive to beat their competition. Nebraska got good because they strove to be better than OU. Same with UT. Same with us against them. Now we only have to be better than texas and right now that doesn't require a whole lot. Maybe its true that we've gotten soft. Maybe its hard to maintain a level of excellence when that level isn't required to win the conference and most of your games. The next few years will determine Bob Stoops legacy. He will either coach the team and players and regain the footing in the top tier or he will muddle through and probably move on whether his choice or not. The success of OU and texas will determine the success of the B12 and its continued existence.

[jkjsooner]

I understand TV markets and all, but there's little evidence of which I'm aware that STL and KC have any more than a grunt of interest in Mizzou.

This has been my argument all along. I said this when the ACC was jumping all over themselves to get Boston College.

I have to think that these conference commissioners have all sorts of analytical data but it just doesn't make sense to me. People in Boston are not college football fans.

[Mac94]

This has been my argument all along. I said this when the ACC was jumping all over themselves to get Boston College.

I have to think that these conference commissioners have all sorts of analytical data but it just doesn't make sense to me. People in Boston are not college football fans.

I wonder how much of it is the BTN model. I thik they get 40 cents per cable subscriber in the Big-10 footprint regardless fo ratings. They get 10 cents per subscriber outside the footprint. So conferences are looking to the future conference networks and the number of cable subscribers inside their footprint? Just a thought.

[Scott D]

Did anyone else laugh when Sabanball posted that "consensus SEC top 14"? I mean really dude, we all know the SEC has 14 teams...don't try to make it sound like there's another 12 SEC teams.

FWIW Fan, the rankings are based on where the "talent" is. Right now, that "talent" is in the Southeast, not Texas. In my opinion the way that Texas talent isn't as down as it was this year is for schools to start scrapping their spread offenses. It's killing trench play and development.