825 3 stars in last 4 years in SEC

[NashVol11]

Anyone trying to act like rankings don't matter or that lower ranked kids work harder and can win on the same level as the higher ranked recruits are lying to themselves to feel better about all the 3 stars we are signing.

Yes

 

[landscapingvol]

Georgia also has about 50 blue chip recruits in their state, much easier to land that many recruits when you have several to chose from. Implying that UT is going to be able to recruit at that level in another state is silly. Even if UT had held onto Higgins, you are talking about a single player. UT is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to recruiting. It is just a fact.

 

[NashVol11]

Georgia also has about 50 blue chip recruits in their state, much easier to land that many recruits when you have several to chose from. Implying that UT is going to be able to recruit at that level in another state is silly. Even if UT had held onto Higgins, you are talking about a single player. UT is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to recruiting. It is just a fact.

We've recruited Georgia heavily and successfully for decades now

 

[CA_Vol]

Georgia also has about 50 blue chip recruits in their state, much easier to land that many recruits when you have several to chose from. Implying that UT is going to be able to recruit at that level in another state is silly. Even if UT had held onto Higgins, you are talking about a single player. UT is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to recruiting. It is just a fact.

Excuse making at its finest. Fulmer consistently landed big time recruits out-of-state when TN didn't have near the instate talent it has today. This class is representative of where recruits see the coach of the program. On the way out...

 

[hmhawk]

50 of the 86 players voted to the Pro Bowl were 3 stars in college. Just saying.

 

[CA_Vol]

50 of the 86 players voted to the Pro Bowl were 3 stars in college. Just saying.

Simple question: Who has had the top recruiting class the last 6 years? And how has that team competed during that stretch?

 

[hmhawk]

Simple question: Who has had the top recruiting class the last 6 years? And how has that team competed during that stretch?

I'd guess bammy but that's not the "question" here. I'm just saying 3 stars ain't that bad of a thing. How many stars were Leaf, Young, Manziel, and Pacman to just name a few right off.

 

[Doberman]

Georgia also has about 50 blue chip recruits in their state, much easier to land that many recruits when you have several to chose from. Implying that UT is going to be able to recruit at that level in another state is silly. Even if UT had held onto Higgins, you are talking about a single player. UT is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to recruiting. It is just a fact.

Tell that to Phil Fulmer.

 

[NashVol11]

50 of the 86 players voted to the Pro Bowl were 3 stars in college. Just saying.

There are at least 10x as many 3-stars as 5-stars in each class, so that's what you would expect.

 

[v011s]

I'd guess bammy but that's not the "question" here. I'm just saying 3 stars ain't that bad of a thing. How many stars were Leaf, Young, Manziel, and Pacman to just name a few right off.

Are you serious?

You could easily name 100x more 3 stars that ended up being trash.
Get real.

You can't repair a sinking ship if you pretend it isn't sinking.

 

[CA_Vol]

I'd guess bammy but that's not the "question" here. I'm just saying 3 stars ain't that bad of a thing. How many stars were Leaf, Young, Manziel, and Pacman to just name a few right off.

This is just dumb...

 

[EZE]

Recruiting evaluations have gotten considerably better over the last decade or so and there's a direct correlation between the number of 4-5 stars recruited and on the field performance.

Can't put my fingers on the article, but someone developed a "blue chip ratio" -- maybe not the exact terminology-- but it clearly showed that high ranking teams over the last 10 years had the most highly ranked recruits.

I had a high school teammate that went on to play for NC State during the peak of FSU/Bobby Bowden's days (think Charlie Ward era).

He said unquestionably recruiting was the #1 factor in major college football. Basically, he said pretty much every D1 team had good coaches and at the very least decent facilities. It all boiled down to depth and when he was blocking FSU's 3rd string DE (who was just as good as their 1st stringer) in the 3rd quarter and he hadn't taken a play off the entire game and had played on special teams....Well, you get the picture

Not a knock on Butch, but we look to be receuiting around 5-6th in the conference this year. If that trend continues, we'll be highly likely to be 5-6th in the SEC standings. Coaches rarely outcoach each other these days, at least not for extended periods of time.

Take for example Bill Snyder and the way everyone drools over his coaching ability. Yes he gets a lot out of a little. Personally, I'd rather have an average coach and a great recruiter. Snyder's won 2 conference titles in 25 years and had a losing record as recently as 2015.

When the courtship began, what was the first question Saban asked the AD at Bama? "What's your recruiting budget?"

You are dead on the mark with this post. A coach might be able to steal one, or maybe two, games per year by outcoaching other teams. But, the great majority of the time, it is the coach that fields the better players that wins.

That is why Saban wasn't winning any titles at Michigan State. Saban might be a mastermind at Xs and Os, but it is his ability to walk on the field before almost any game starts with a considerable talent edge that makes the biggest difference. Especially with what he has built at Alabama.

Even the staunchest Butch supporter has to agree that recruiting is trending in the wrong direction. If it doesn't start going the other way, his long term viability at UT is in trouble.

 

[EZE]

This is just dumb...

Yes, it is. It doesn't hurt to have 3* recruits in a class. It is when the majority of your class is 3* recruits that you get into trouble. And that is where we are in this class (and last year's class, too). That has to change.

 

[QuickSmurf]

Just because a player is a 3 star in high school doesn't mean he won't grow into a 4 or 5 star in college. One of the biggest difference between 5 stars and 3 stars is how soon they will play in college. Imo thinking that any player has reached their full potential in high school is not the way to think about recruits. I think that we sometimes do assume a 3 star will always be one of a 5 star will turn into that great player.

 

[EZE]

Just because a player is a 3 star in high school doesn't mean he won't grow into a 4 or 5 star in college. One of the biggest difference between 5 stars and 3 stars is how soon they will play in college.

I don't disagree with this. But, the odds are much greater that a 5* will grow into a strong contributor than they are for a 3*.

 

[TNinSC]

I'd guess bammy but that's not the "question" here. I'm just saying 3 stars ain't that bad of a thing. How many stars were Leaf, Young, Manziel, and Pacman to just name a few right off.

There is a lot of good 3* talent out there. Many of them shine during their college years. Cameron Sutton and someone would say Josh Dobbs. But when there's NO development by the coaching staff, then the team remains a 3* leveled team. Average. Nothing special. Which honestly is what we've been for past three years.

 

[QuickSmurf]

I don't disagree with this. But, the odds are much greater that a 5* will grow into a strong contributor than they are for a 3*.

Contribute earlier yes I agree. I have changed my beliefs about rankings long ago. To me the biggest difference is how soon they contribute or how ready they are to play college football.

 

[Doberman]

History shows national titles without elite recruiting over 4 years is rare


Put this baby to bed.

Higher stars matter.

Why this was/is ever a debate is ludicrous.

 

[NashVol11]

Just because a player is a 3 star in high school doesn't mean he won't grow into a 4 or 5 star in college. One of the biggest difference between 5 stars and 3 stars is how soon they will play in college. Imo thinking that any player has reached their full potential in high school is not the way to think about recruits. I think that we sometimes do assume a 3 star will always be one of a 5 star will turn into that great player.

5 star doesn't necessarily mean you've reached your full potential already, just that evaluators see the most talent/potential in your future

 

[QuickSmurf]

There is a lot of good 3* talent out there. Many of them shine during their college years. Cameron Sutton and someone would say Josh Dobbs. But when there's NO development by the coaching staff, then the team remains a 3* leveled team. Average. Nothing special. Which honestly is what we've been for past three years.

I dont agree with that. We have some good 3 stars that have developed nicely. We will see even more once out S&C gets going.

 

[NashVol11]

Contribute earlier yes I agree. I have changed my beliefs about rankings long ago. To me the biggest difference is how soon they contribute or how ready they are to play college football.

It's not a measure of "readiness."

110-101 = A player ranked in this range is a "franchise player." He is one of the best to come along in years - if not decades (LeBron James, Adrian Peterson). Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "can't miss" talent.

100-98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 25 or so prospects in the nation. Player has excellent pro potential, and should emerge as one of the best players in the country before his college career ends.

97-90 = Four-star prospect. Prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. All-America candidate who displays pro potential. Typically one of the top 300 players in the nation.

89-80 = Three-star prospect. These are the players who will develop into reliable starters for the college teams. They are among the best players in their region of the country, and are generally among the top 750 players in the nation.

79-below = Two-star prospect. These players make up the bulk of Division I rosters. They may have little pro potential, are likely to become role players for their respective schools or not enough is known about the prospect to rank them accurately.

 

[Doberman]

I dont agree with that. We have some good 3 stars that have developed nicely. We will see even more once out S&C gets going.

S&C should have never stopped.

Mind boggling lack of foresight by Butch.

 

[QuickSmurf]

5 star doesn't necessarily mean you've reached your full potential already, just that evaluators see the most talent/potential in your future

They see them contributing much earlier in their college career. Most 5 stars are already strong with good weight/size. There are 3 stars with 4.4 speed but need to grow and gain weight. I'm just saying that 5 stars are more ready to play early and that doesn't mean 3 stars will never be as good.

 

[EZE]

There is a lot of good 3* talent out there. Many of them shine during their college years. Cameron Sutton and someone would say Josh Dobbs. But when there's NO development by the coaching staff, then the team remains a 3* leveled team. Average. Nothing special. Which honestly is what we've been for past three years.

This isn't remotely true or fair considering where this program was just five years ago. (Just a reminder: coming off of back-to-back 1-6 SEC seasons).

The last two seasons, this program has finished in the Top 25. And won three consecutive bowl games for the first time in decades. Not where any of us want the ceiling to be. But, to say "average, nothing special" is not accurate. Especially from where we've come.

 

[QuickSmurf]

S&C should have never stopped.

Mind boggling lack of foresight by Butch.

But you never know, maybe Butch was waiting on Rock and thought we could continue with what we were doing until the end of the season? Rock is going to kill it here. Grand slam hire.