***Official National Signing Day thread*** (1 Viewer)

[Joe T]

USC still have a terrible year?

 

[GDogg]

The actual services publishing the rankings aren't important at all and the results will be what they are whether Rivals, Scout, 247 or anyone else pulled the plug on publication. The rankings are just the scouting services' best shot at quantifying the talent that the schools have actually brought in. Nothing more or less.

The amounts of talent that are brought in, however, are the most important aspect of college football and have a huge impact on wins and losses and playing in conference championship and BCS bowl games. Recruiting his huge. You aren't arguing against this, are you?

My only point in all this is that these rankings are mere opinion. It's virtually impossible to say X class turned out to be #1 because of their ability. There are dozens of factors that go into success. The athlete's ability is only one of them. This topic is, IMO, one of the biggest examples of people mistaking causation for correlation. Take any player you choose and try to analyze what makes them successful at the college level. What percentage is God given ability? What percentage is their smarts? What percentage is their coaching? What percentage is the scheme they're in?This is the ultimate team sport, but that's not how the rankings are approached. They're fun to follow. They're something to talk about, but that's about where their usefulness ends. These guys will be part of a bigger picture and their success will depend greatly on a lot of factors out of their control. If there was a way to quantify their personal contributions, maybe we'd have something, but there's not.

We know they are opinions. But the scouting services are good at they job. By and large, the rankings are a good judge of how much talent is being brought in.

This is what I said in my initial posts of this thread. It's a good judge of high school talent. That's about it. It can't be tied to how they will do in college, yet these rankings are made out to be more than "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y".

By whom?

 

[The Commish]

The actual services publishing the rankings aren't important at all and the results will be what they are whether Rivals, Scout, 247 or anyone else pulled the plug on publication. The rankings are just the scouting services' best shot at quantifying the talent that the schools have actually brought in. Nothing more or less.

The amounts of talent that are brought in, however, are the most important aspect of college football and have a huge impact on wins and losses and playing in conference championship and BCS bowl games. Recruiting his huge. You aren't arguing against this, are you?

My only point in all this is that these rankings are mere opinion. It's virtually impossible to say X class turned out to be #1 because of their ability. There are dozens of factors that go into success. The athlete's ability is only one of them. This topic is, IMO, one of the biggest examples of people mistaking causation for correlation. Take any player you choose and try to analyze what makes them successful at the college level. What percentage is God given ability? What percentage is their smarts? What percentage is their coaching? What percentage is the scheme they're in?This is the ultimate team sport, but that's not how the rankings are approached. They're fun to follow. They're something to talk about, but that's about where their usefulness ends. These guys will be part of a bigger picture and their success will depend greatly on a lot of factors out of their control. If there was a way to quantify their personal contributions, maybe we'd have something, but there's not.

We know they are opinions. But the scouting services are good at they job. By and large, the rankings are a good judge of how much talent is being brought in.

This is what I said in my initial posts of this thread. It's a good judge of high school talent. That's about it. It can't be tied to how they will do in college, yet these rankings are made out to be more than "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y".

By whom?

Anyone using recruiting class ranks in their preseason rankings?? Lots of folks. We won't even get into the chest thumping fans.

 

[GDogg]

The actual services publishing the rankings aren't important at all and the results will be what they are whether Rivals, Scout, 247 or anyone else pulled the plug on publication. The rankings are just the scouting services' best shot at quantifying the talent that the schools have actually brought in. Nothing more or less.

The amounts of talent that are brought in, however, are the most important aspect of college football and have a huge impact on wins and losses and playing in conference championship and BCS bowl games. Recruiting his huge. You aren't arguing against this, are you?

My only point in all this is that these rankings are mere opinion. It's virtually impossible to say X class turned out to be #1 because of their ability. There are dozens of factors that go into success. The athlete's ability is only one of them. This topic is, IMO, one of the biggest examples of people mistaking causation for correlation. Take any player you choose and try to analyze what makes them successful at the college level. What percentage is God given ability? What percentage is their smarts? What percentage is their coaching? What percentage is the scheme they're in?This is the ultimate team sport, but that's not how the rankings are approached. They're fun to follow. They're something to talk about, but that's about where their usefulness ends. These guys will be part of a bigger picture and their success will depend greatly on a lot of factors out of their control. If there was a way to quantify their personal contributions, maybe we'd have something, but there's not.

We know they are opinions. But the scouting services are good at they job. By and large, the rankings are a good judge of how much talent is being brought in.

This is what I said in my initial posts of this thread. It's a good judge of high school talent. That's about it. It can't be tied to how they will do in college, yet these rankings are made out to be more than "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y".

By whom?

Anyone using recruiting class ranks in their preseason rankings?? Lots of folks. We won't even get into the chest thumping fans.

If "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y," then why wouldn't fans be happy? And, why wouldn't you take into account accumulation of more talent in your preseason rankings?

 

[The Commish]

The actual services publishing the rankings aren't important at all and the results will be what they are whether Rivals, Scout, 247 or anyone else pulled the plug on publication. The rankings are just the scouting services' best shot at quantifying the talent that the schools have actually brought in. Nothing more or less.

The amounts of talent that are brought in, however, are the most important aspect of college football and have a huge impact on wins and losses and playing in conference championship and BCS bowl games. Recruiting his huge. You aren't arguing against this, are you?

My only point in all this is that these rankings are mere opinion. It's virtually impossible to say X class turned out to be #1 because of their ability. There are dozens of factors that go into success. The athlete's ability is only one of them. This topic is, IMO, one of the biggest examples of people mistaking causation for correlation. Take any player you choose and try to analyze what makes them successful at the college level. What percentage is God given ability? What percentage is their smarts? What percentage is their coaching? What percentage is the scheme they're in?This is the ultimate team sport, but that's not how the rankings are approached. They're fun to follow. They're something to talk about, but that's about where their usefulness ends. These guys will be part of a bigger picture and their success will depend greatly on a lot of factors out of their control. If there was a way to quantify their personal contributions, maybe we'd have something, but there's not.

We know they are opinions. But the scouting services are good at they job. By and large, the rankings are a good judge of how much talent is being brought in.

This is what I said in my initial posts of this thread. It's a good judge of high school talent. That's about it. It can't be tied to how they will do in college, yet these rankings are made out to be more than "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y".

By whom?

Anyone using recruiting class ranks in their preseason rankings?? Lots of folks. We won't even get into the chest thumping fans.

If "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y," then why wouldn't fans be happy? And, why wouldn't you take into account accumulation of more talent in your preseason rankings?

How would you take it into "account"? You have no idea if that HS level talent's going to translate to college. It could be that player X was good because he was bigger than everyone else, or faster than everyone else. It's the same issue with going from college to the pros.

 

[Abraham]

SI released some rankings by position (LSU#1 for QB, Bama #1 for RB, etc.) The Vols were ranked #5 out of 5 for receivers, which is a start!

 

[GDogg]

The actual services publishing the rankings aren't important at all and the results will be what they are whether Rivals, Scout, 247 or anyone else pulled the plug on publication. The rankings are just the scouting services' best shot at quantifying the talent that the schools have actually brought in. Nothing more or less.

The amounts of talent that are brought in, however, are the most important aspect of college football and have a huge impact on wins and losses and playing in conference championship and BCS bowl games. Recruiting his huge. You aren't arguing against this, are you?

My only point in all this is that these rankings are mere opinion. It's virtually impossible to say X class turned out to be #1 because of their ability. There are dozens of factors that go into success. The athlete's ability is only one of them. This topic is, IMO, one of the biggest examples of people mistaking causation for correlation. Take any player you choose and try to analyze what makes them successful at the college level. What percentage is God given ability? What percentage is their smarts? What percentage is their coaching? What percentage is the scheme they're in?This is the ultimate team sport, but that's not how the rankings are approached. They're fun to follow. They're something to talk about, but that's about where their usefulness ends. These guys will be part of a bigger picture and their success will depend greatly on a lot of factors out of their control. If there was a way to quantify their personal contributions, maybe we'd have something, but there's not.

We know they are opinions. But the scouting services are good at they job. By and large, the rankings are a good judge of how much talent is being brought in.

This is what I said in my initial posts of this thread. It's a good judge of high school talent. That's about it. It can't be tied to how they will do in college, yet these rankings are made out to be more than "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y".

By whom?

Anyone using recruiting class ranks in their preseason rankings?? Lots of folks. We won't even get into the chest thumping fans.

If "team X just accumulated a lot more HS talent than team Y," then why wouldn't fans be happy? And, why wouldn't you take into account accumulation of more talent in your preseason rankings?

How would you take it into "account"? You have no idea if that HS level talent's going to translate to college. It could be that player X was good because he was bigger than everyone else, or faster than everyone else. It's the same issue with going from college to the pros.

How would you take it into account? Because you have four classes worth of data already as to how they translated to college. The rank of solely the true freshmen class carries very little weight in the evaluation of the overall talent. Are you saying there is someone out there that bases the preseason rankings on the incoming true frosh class?Taking the class rankings into account was exactly how Herbstreit and a few other media members were able to pinpoint UCLA has a sleeper in the Pac-12 and a possible Top 25 team. UCLA had been crap for years, but if you paid attention to recruit rankings, you knew that UCLA had a great deal of "raw" talent on the roster, which either hadn't been developed properly or which was overrated by coaching staffs ranging from Southern Cal to Oklahoma to Florida to LSU to Oregon, etc. Herbstreit (as an example) erred on the side of UCLA's talent hadn't been coached up and if Mora and staff were able to, then they had the raw talent (based on recruit rankings) to rise up and compete for the Pac-12 title.

 

[timschochet]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

 

[The Commish]

The rank of solely the true freshmen class carries very little weight in the evaluation of the overall talent. Are you saying there is someone out there that bases the preseason rankings on the incoming true frosh class?

Watch the commentaries just before the season starts and just after the pre season rankings come out. Count how many times you hear something similar to "....and the incoming class is very talented and very strong" and you tell me. I hear this over and over in the preseason. It's not the only factor, but it's certainly one used. I'll also say, the prior year rankings become irrelevant once the players are playing. One can then move to the actual results on the field as an indicator.

 

[Joe T]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

If they were in the Pac-10 they would be headed to a BCS bowl. Since they are in the SEC, it probably means they will continue going to the BBVA Compass Bowl each year.

 

[gump]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

An Alabama player pointed to Ole Miss as a team that surprised them on the field THIS YEAR. I think this class changes things for them...if Freese doesn't leave....I'd guess moving ahead of MSU (sorry JB), Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, and Vandy in the next few years....which is pretty good. Not into the top 3 in the West....but more competitive with them.

 

[timschochet]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

An Alabama player pointed to Ole Miss as a team that surprised them on the field THIS YEAR. I think this class changes things for them...if Freese doesn't leave....I'd guess moving ahead of MSU (sorry JB), Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, and Vandy in the next few years....which is pretty good. Not into the top 3 in the West....but more competitive with them.

I get that you're an Alabama fan, so maybe you're just trying to stick it to them? Predicting that Ole Miss will surpass Auburn?

 

[gump]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

An Alabama player pointed to Ole Miss as a team that surprised them on the field THIS YEAR. I think this class changes things for them...if Freese doesn't leave....I'd guess moving ahead of MSU (sorry JB), Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, and Vandy in the next few years....which is pretty good. Not into the top 3 in the West....but more competitive with them.

I get that you're an Alabama fan, so maybe you're just trying to stick it to them? Predicting that Ole Miss will surpass Auburn?

On the field in the next 3-4 years? They are already past them. That's an easy one. Auburn had the worst team in SEC history this year. Ole Miss beat them by 3 TDs. I thought a lot harder about listing the others. (But of course I won't deny I'm biased.)

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

An Alabama player pointed to Ole Miss as a team that surprised them on the field THIS YEAR. I think this class changes things for them...if Freese doesn't leave....I'd guess moving ahead of MSU (sorry JB), Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, and Vandy in the next few years....which is pretty good. Not into the top 3 in the West....but more competitive with them.

I get that you're an Alabama fan, so maybe you're just trying to stick it to them? Predicting that Ole Miss will surpass Auburn?

You realize Auburn went 0-8 in conference and Ole Miss past them big time this year right?

 

[shader]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

The problem with Ole Miss is that the SEC West had FIVE top ten recruiting classes for this year. That's amazing for one division. So Ole Miss gained a lot on Miss St. and Arkansas, but didn't really gain on the other four teams. So yeah, it brings them up a bit from doormat status, but they won't be competing for division titles anytime soon.

 

[shader]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

An Alabama player pointed to Ole Miss as a team that surprised them on the field THIS YEAR. I think this class changes things for them...if Freese doesn't leave....I'd guess moving ahead of MSU (sorry JB), Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, and Vandy in the next few years....which is pretty good. Not into the top 3 in the West....but more competitive with them.

I get that you're an Alabama fan, so maybe you're just trying to stick it to them? Predicting that Ole Miss will surpass Auburn?

Auburn just had the worst team in SEC history. Yeah, it's not that outlandish.

 

[Joe T]

SEC Guys: Given Florida had a good recruiting class, do you see them being good next year? And by good I mean going to bowls and such./timschochit

 

[Slapdash]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

An Alabama player pointed to Ole Miss as a team that surprised them on the field THIS YEAR. I think this class changes things for them...if Freese doesn't leave....I'd guess moving ahead of MSU (sorry JB), Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, and Vandy in the next few years....which is pretty good. Not into the top 3 in the West....but more competitive with them.

I get that you're an Alabama fan, so maybe you're just trying to stick it to them? Predicting that Ole Miss will surpass Auburn?

Ole Miss won a couple of Cotton Bowls just a few years ago. It isn't like they have been that terrible.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

SI released some rankings by position (LSU#1 for QB, Bama #1 for RB, etc.) The Vols were ranked #5 out of 5 for receivers, which is a start!

I saw this and immediately checked the OL to make sure they got it right. To their credit, they did but I'm guessing it was impossible to screw up.

Offensive line 1. Michigan • 2013 recruits: Kyle Bosch, David Dawson, Chris Fox, Patrick Kugler, Dan Samuelson, Scott Sypniewski, Logan Tuley-Tillman • The skinny: In addition to adding a great quarterback (Shane Morris), top running backs and solid tight ends, Hoke landed key prospects on the offensive line. Kugler is the highest-ranked player in the group, and he's expected to develop into a center. Sypniewski was brought in as a long-snapper. Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130208/offensive-position-rankings-recruiting-2013/#ixzz2KLeArLUb

 

[GDogg]

I have a question for the SEC fans: Everyone seems to agree that Mississippi had a fantastic result, by far their best ever. So what does it translate to? This team hasn't been very good. They've been at or near the cellar; even Vanderbilt has been better in recent years. Will Ole Miss start winning now? Will they compete with the good teams in the conference? Are they headed to bowl games and rankings?

The problem with Ole Miss is that the SEC West had FIVE top ten recruiting classes for this year. That's amazing for one division. So Ole Miss gained a lot on Miss St. and Arkansas, but didn't really gain on the other four teams. So yeah, it brings them up a bit from doormat status, but they won't be competing for division titles anytime soon.

This might not be true. You have to remember that this is in the context of the totality of the team. So, if the other four teams lost classes ranked in the top 10 to graduation, but replaced them with the top 10 classes, then their total talent level remained the same, more or less. But, if Ole Miss graduated a class ranked in the 50s or something and replaced them with a top 10 class, then they are closing the talent gap while the other teams are remaining the same.

 

[gump]

I may have been a little aggressive on OM....because those facilities are going to bring them back to earth eventually. Even MSU is blowing by them right now in that aspect....and they're not on the same planet as Auburn, Tenn, or Arky.They'll be talented and well-coached....for a small window.

 

[gump]

Special teams win championships!

Kicker signings

Punter signings

Long snapper signings

I thought we flipped the Buckeye punter? Cole Mazza is the man at LS though.

 

[gump]

An Auburn beat writer posted an article today detailing how Gus Malzahn wants to change Auburn's recruiting. The short of it is to emulate what Saban has installed in Tuscaloosa. It was a pretty interesting read. I won't bore everyone with the Auburn specific portions, but below is how Saban built his recruiting network.

Great post...and more insight into how the great recruiters dig deeper than just skill on the field.

 

[GDogg]

Special teams win championships!

Kicker signings

Punter signings

Long snapper signings

I thought we flipped the Buckeye punter? Cole Mazza is the man at LS though.

Yeah, thanks for stealing him. UCLA actually has had excellent specialists, so Mazza was a player UCLA were happy to have gotten and then bummed when he flipped. I saw on the Alabama site right after he flipped a lot of posters questioning a scholarship for a long snapper, but that's an issue that it looks like Alabama won't have any worries over for the next four years.

 

[gump]

Special teams win championships!

Kicker signings

Punter signings

Long snapper signings

I thought we flipped the Buckeye punter? Cole Mazza is the man at LS though.

Yeah, thanks for stealing him. UCLA actually has had excellent specialists, so Mazza was a player UCLA were happy to have gotten and then bummed when he flipped. I saw on the Alabama site right after he flipped a lot of posters questioning a scholarship for a long snapper, but that's an issue that it looks like Alabama won't have any worries over for the next four years.

Yea...I think fans are realizing how important that spot must be....in the end, we probably took him over a player ranked in the top 150 at a high profile position. I'm starting my son at Snapping Camp early.

 

[gump]

247 is adding a ranking/rating history for every player....so you can see how it changes during their recruiting cycle:http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/510/822/822510.png

 

[The Commish]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

 

[GDogg]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

An exhibit of what? That's neither a recruiting ranking nor the actual ESPN or AP preseason rankings.

 

[shader]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

 

[The Commish]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

An exhibit of what? That's neither a recruiting ranking nor the actual ESPN or AP preseason rankings.

You're telling me, these won't play into the preseason rankings? I guess there's a first time for everything. We'll see.

 

[GDogg]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

An exhibit of what? That's neither a recruiting ranking nor the actual ESPN or AP preseason rankings.

You're telling me, these won't play into the preseason rankings? I guess there's a first time for everything. We'll see.

I suppose in some small measure, but we'll never really know. We don't get to see the thought processes of the vast majority of the voters. I read a lot of posts by west coast voters and I can't recall them saying much about the recruiting rankings in the fall. Maybe they did, but I don't remember it. The previews seem to focus a great deal on the losses to the NFL and graduation and on what starters are returning. Because so few true freshmen are expected to play a major role on contending teams, I really can't recall a time I've seen a voter say that an incoming class pushed a team higher on his list. Again, I suppose it could, but I don't recall it. Now, specific true Frosh are certainly discussed. Everyone knew Adrian Peterson was going to be a superstar right out of the blocks at Oklahoma (maybe not as good as he was...), and it was talked about. Matt Barkley was discussed at Southern Cal, but it was seen as a negative - few true Frosh do well in a pro system right away. It was always viewed as Southern Cal building for the future.By the time the preseason rankings roll out in August, the "glow" of the recruiting rankings will be in the mirror as spring practices will have happened and the early fall practices will start and depth charts (with few true frosh in the two deep) will have been released.

 

[shader]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

An exhibit of what? That's neither a recruiting ranking nor the actual ESPN or AP preseason rankings.

You're telling me, these won't play into the preseason rankings? I guess there's a first time for everything. We'll see.

I suppose in some small measure, but we'll never really know. We don't get to see the thought processes of the vast majority of the voters. I read a lot of posts by west coast voters and I can't recall them saying much about the recruiting rankings in the fall. Maybe they did, but I don't remember it. The previews seem to focus a great deal on the losses to the NFL and graduation and on what starters are returning. Because so few true freshmen are expected to play a major role on contending teams, I really can't recall a time I've seen a voter say that an incoming class pushed a team higher on his list. Again, I suppose it could, but I don't recall it. Now, specific true Frosh are certainly discussed. Everyone knew Adrian Peterson was going to be a superstar right out of the blocks at Oklahoma (maybe not as good as he was...), and it was talked about. Matt Barkley was discussed at Southern Cal, but it was seen as a negative - few true Frosh do well in a pro system right away. It was always viewed as Southern Cal building for the future.By the time the preseason rankings roll out in August, the "glow" of the recruiting rankings will be in the mirror as spring practices will have happened and the early fall practices will start and depth charts (with few true frosh in the two deep) will have been released.

Commish won't be happen until it's the NFL, there are no rankings of any kind, we have 16-team playoffs and everything is decided on the field.I'm not saying there aren't merits to that scenario, you just have to understand where he's coming from.

 

[The Commish]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

An exhibit of what? That's neither a recruiting ranking nor the actual ESPN or AP preseason rankings.

You're telling me, these won't play into the preseason rankings? I guess there's a first time for everything. We'll see.

I suppose in some small measure, but we'll never really know. We don't get to see the thought processes of the vast majority of the voters. I read a lot of posts by west coast voters and I can't recall them saying much about the recruiting rankings in the fall. Maybe they did, but I don't remember it. The previews seem to focus a great deal on the losses to the NFL and graduation and on what starters are returning. Because so few true freshmen are expected to play a major role on contending teams, I really can't recall a time I've seen a voter say that an incoming class pushed a team higher on his list. Again, I suppose it could, but I don't recall it. Now, specific true Frosh are certainly discussed. Everyone knew Adrian Peterson was going to be a superstar right out of the blocks at Oklahoma (maybe not as good as he was...), and it was talked about. Matt Barkley was discussed at Southern Cal, but it was seen as a negative - few true Frosh do well in a pro system right away. It was always viewed as Southern Cal building for the future.By the time the preseason rankings roll out in August, the "glow" of the recruiting rankings will be in the mirror as spring practices will have happened and the early fall practices will start and depth charts (with few true frosh in the two deep) will have been released.

There will be more to come...no worries. Most of the lists you see going forward will mention them and outright use them as one of their factors justifying their position.

 

[The Commish]

By whom?

Exhibit ACount the number of references to recruiting classes in each summary.

An exhibit of what? That's neither a recruiting ranking nor the actual ESPN or AP preseason rankings.

You're telling me, these won't play into the preseason rankings? I guess there's a first time for everything. We'll see.

I suppose in some small measure, but we'll never really know. We don't get to see the thought processes of the vast majority of the voters. I read a lot of posts by west coast voters and I can't recall them saying much about the recruiting rankings in the fall. Maybe they did, but I don't remember it. The previews seem to focus a great deal on the losses to the NFL and graduation and on what starters are returning. Because so few true freshmen are expected to play a major role on contending teams, I really can't recall a time I've seen a voter say that an incoming class pushed a team higher on his list. Again, I suppose it could, but I don't recall it. Now, specific true Frosh are certainly discussed. Everyone knew Adrian Peterson was going to be a superstar right out of the blocks at Oklahoma (maybe not as good as he was...), and it was talked about. Matt Barkley was discussed at Southern Cal, but it was seen as a negative - few true Frosh do well in a pro system right away. It was always viewed as Southern Cal building for the future.By the time the preseason rankings roll out in August, the "glow" of the recruiting rankings will be in the mirror as spring practices will have happened and the early fall practices will start and depth charts (with few true frosh in the two deep) will have been released.

Commish won't be happen until it's the NFL, there are no rankings of any kind, we have 16-team playoffs and everything is decided on the field.I'm not saying there aren't merits to that scenario, you just have to understand where he's coming from.

If you're going to speak for me, please be accurate. I have no problem with rankings but I expect those rankings to be based on this year after some considerable evidence is provided. I have ZERO problem with rankings as long as they're 5ish weeks into the season. That's probably the 1000th time I've said this...perhaps one day it will sink in.

 

[The Commish]

Ok...so who's telling Jabrill Peppers that Hoke is going to the NFL?!?!?!

I think it's safe to assume it's someone who's on his offer sheet. I can't decode which is more sad...that he'd believe it or that someone would actually try to pass "Hoke to the NFL" off as the truth

 

[gump]

If you guys want some detail to help with your debate...from the Alabama '13 class, here's who many think will contributeerrick Henry - RB could be the #2, which means he could contribute close to a level of TJ Yeldon in '12OJ Howard - TE type of player that UA doesn't have....will play...may be the guy in some packagesLeon Brown - JUCO OT will get first shot at replacing Fluker at starting RGRobert Foster - big WR could play some packages...doubtful he has impact of Amari Cooper in '12Allen / Liner - 'fast twitch' DL should get some PT in the slightly new look DL that Saban is molding in response to the ManzielReuben Foster - maybe a small role at a deep position...unless he's just a superstarThat's probably it. Will make an impact on O most likely, but not really on D.

 

[Slider6]

Ok...so who's telling Jabrill Peppers that Hoke is going to the NFL?!?!?! I think it's safe to assume it's someone who's on his offer sheet. I can't decode which is more sad...that he'd believe it or that someone would actually try to pass "Hoke to the NFL" off as the truth

Not too tough to figure out who the "culprit" is that is telling him that.

 

[GDogg]

Rumors are spreading that Eddie Vanderdoes might be back on the market after a falling out with Notre Dame. Vanderdoes chose Notre Dame on Signing Day over Alabama, UCLA and Southern Cal.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Rumors are spreading that Eddie Vanderdoes might be back on the market after a falling out with Notre Dame. Vanderdoes chose Notre Dame on Signing Day over Alabama, UCLA and Southern Cal.

I doubt it would be to USC after the Twitter troll.

 

[GDogg]

Rumors are spreading that Eddie Vanderdoes might be back on the market after a falling out with Notre Dame. Vanderdoes chose Notre Dame on Signing Day over Alabama, UCLA and Southern Cal.

I doubt it would be to USC after the Twitter troll.

From what most of the "experts" were saying, Southern Cal had been eliminated prior to Signing Day, but I included them because he was verbally committed there and I think he did have their hat on his table.

But, yeah, I don't think he gets a release to go there. The UCLA fans are all but popping corks on this. We'll see.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Rumors are spreading that Eddie Vanderdoes might be back on the market after a falling out with Notre Dame. Vanderdoes chose Notre Dame on Signing Day over Alabama, UCLA and Southern Cal.

I doubt it would be to USC after the Twitter troll.

From what most of the "experts" were saying, Southern Cal had been eliminated prior to Signing Day, but I included them because he was verbally committed there and I think he did have their hat on his table.

But, yeah, I don't think he gets a release to go there. The UCLA fans are all but popping corks on this. We'll see.

What is the nature of the 'falling out'

 

[GDogg]

Rumors are spreading that Eddie Vanderdoes might be back on the market after a falling out with Notre Dame. Vanderdoes chose Notre Dame on Signing Day over Alabama, UCLA and Southern Cal.

I doubt it would be to USC after the Twitter troll.

From what most of the "experts" were saying, Southern Cal had been eliminated prior to Signing Day, but I included them because he was verbally committed there and I think he did have their hat on his table.

But, yeah, I don't think he gets a release to go there. The UCLA fans are all but popping corks on this. We'll see.

What is the nature of the 'falling out'

The ND side is saying it began as an academics issue and has grown from there. The other speculation is that his family didn't want him to go far from home and he's now decided that he didn't want to go far from home, either.

I haven't seen or heard anything in detail from the UCLA side. Mostly just regurgitations of what the ND people are saying at IE and IrishIllustrated.

 

[Slider6]

At some point coaches need to put their feet down. NSD is not a deadline, but the opening of the signing period. These kids put their signature on a binding agreement.

 

[GDogg]

At some point coaches need to put their feet down. NSD is not a deadline, but the opening of the signing period. These kids put their signature on a binding agreement.

Which is dumb on their part. It only binds the player to the school, not the other way around. None of these guys should put up with the pressure of signing one-way NLIs. They should sign scholarship agreements instead. Then again, most of these kids have no idea they have another option.

 

[Slider6]

At some point coaches need to put their feet down. NSD is not a deadline, but the opening of the signing period. These kids put their signature on a binding agreement.

Which is dumb on their part. It only binds the player to the school, not the other way around. None of these guys should put up with the pressure of signing one-way NLIs. They should sign scholarship agreements instead. Then again, most of these kids have no idea they have another option.

I agree. And that is on the kid, his parents, and the coaches to tell them all of their options. I'm sure there are lots of college coaches that don't want to tell them their options, but the HS coaches should be well versed in this.

 

[GDogg]

Sounds like the #1 QB in the country according to Scout.com (Rivals' #2 QB), Kyle Allen, out of Arizona, will be announcing for Texas A&M in 15 minutes.

UCLA people really thought they were leading for him. Notre Dame was thought to be the main competition.

 

[gump]

Any of you OU guys know much about Cornwell? 247 has him as the top pro-style QB....and Alabama boards are in love.

 

[derek245583]

Any of you OU guys know much about Cornwell? 247 has him as the top pro-style QB....and Alabama boards are in love.

He was interested in Michigan and I think Michigan said "no thanks"

Give me a minute, I know I read a reason the other day...just have to remember what it was

 

[derek245583]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=9326710&src=desktop&wjb

I think that is what I stumbled upon...and that UM thinks his transcripts are a wreck.

But ya, I bet he is a stud

 

[gump]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=9326710&src=desktop&wjb

I think that is what I stumbled upon...and that UM thinks his transcripts are a wreck.

But ya, I bet he is a stud

Yea....apparently a big deal for all parties that he plays his senior year. But he will also graduate in Dec and enroll early wherever he goes. Saban spent a lot of time at the recent summer camp with him separated and throwing. It's so hit and miss with QBs though...and Saban has said he thinks dual threat kids are a smart way to go. But if the kid can throw and is 6'5"...