23 teams average higher per recruit than OU on Rivals

We're ranked 12 right now, but we have a fairly large # of guys already(22). The rankings are based upon # of guys, to some degree, as well as the player's rating, on a 5 point scale. usuc is way out in front on avg. per player, and we're 23rd on that criterion alone.

 

Lane Kiffin killed five hookers.

 

will that garner him another 5-star?

 

Lane couldn't kill five hookers if you spotted him half dead hookers with their throats already slashed. He'd manage to screw it up and they'd end up bionic with no sense.

 

who cares? A great stat that STEP has posted, of the 27 players that Bama has put in the NFL since 07', 16 were 3 stars or less. Its how you coach em up, not how some internet site rates them

 

Yes. true.That IS important.

 

Early leader in the Post of the Year Sweepstakes.

ROFL

 

Coaching is part of it, but how they grow is important as well. The key is that outside of skill positions like WR and RB, how their body responds to weight gain is the most important factor. If they lose speed/athleticism they aren't going to be drafted.

 

Let's hope that we find some diamonds in the rough on Wednesday.

 

Correct me if im wrong, but by that statement I suspet you are suggesting that we arent developing them correctly in the weight room, or that Schmidt isnt doing a good job?

 

This isn't just an OU problem so even if Schmidt has something to do with it, it is an establishment issue not just him.

More likely, the problem is genetics. A secondary problem is that they may be older than the average HS athlete and have peaked physically.

 

Rillay?

 

So....who is classified as a diamond in the rough? I'll take a 2 or 3 star player with desire and a good head on his shoulders than those 5 star prima donas that end up getting booted or get passed over by guys that truly value their scholarship..

Boomer

 

Well there are a lot more 3 star guys to pick from every year than there are 4 and 5 star guys, so that makes sense. Plus all those 3 star guys are getting pushed for playing time by the 4 and 5 star guys.

Recruiting matters, and stars do-- by and large-- matter. Yeah, you can get some prima donnas or flops in there, but if we start recruiting nothing but 3 stars, we will become a mediocre to bad program.

 

and conversely you can have a lot of 5 loss seasons ala Tejas and USC with all 4-5 star players.

 

Rocket Science!

 

If you have one of those xclnt coaches, it's true. I contend only 3 programs have the luxury of great recruiting, regardless of the track record of the coach. you named 2 of them. The other is los domer. Unfortunately, domer now appears to have a pretty good coach.

 

Coaching is of course important but the teams that win national championships recruit highly ranked players. Not to say if you have a highly ranked class you will win a championship. However if you don't, chances are you won't win. While Rivals ratings are not going to be 100% accurate on any individual player they are generally correct given the law of large numbers.

 

D'Oh!!!

 

Apparently it was a draw names out of a hat time before Rivals and Scout came along since there weren't any star ranking systems earlier in time.

One day hopefully people will see the systems for the jokes they are.