| FTBL Another interesting post from a computer program...

[Guest]

I don't know the accuracy, but it sounds about right.
Originally posted by MASTERCONTROLPROGRAM from the BamaMag site.

./reply/auburn fans and others/comparing past recruiting classes: output post/

I have scanned numerous message board posts across the internet where Auburn, Tennessee, and other rival fans have been comparing their recent recruiting classes to Shula's recruiting classes in an effort to boost the perception of Alabama's players - thereby minimizing the effort of Saban's recruiting.

The general consensus is that under Shula, Alabama ranked somewhere between 15th and 22nd nationally in recruiting over the Shula era. This compares to Auburn ranking between 10th and 14th. According to them, this year's class is not significantly better than Shula's classes.

The MCP begs to differ.

They are discounting the fact that under Price and Shula, Alabama had a grand total of 13 players who rated 4 stars or higher according to scout.com ever make it onto campus. There were numerous other highly rated players who were either unable to make it to campus academically, or never played for other reasons. The only reason Alabama was even ranked in the top 30 over those years was players like Mike Ford (signed twice), and Chris Keys, and the effect of re-signing players who had been placed in prep (Fanney, Ford, and Washington for example). Those non-players and re-signs falsely inflated Alabama's average recruiting class.

By all appearances, most of Saban's class are already qualified. Those who are not, are not far from it.

With 17 four star or higher players currently committed, and the addition of two to three more on NSD, Alabama will bring in more four and five star players in 2008 than it did in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 - combined.

End of Line...

 

[imported_porkchop]

Nice! ;tr

 

[bamafan4ever]

I think it is difficult to comprehend exactly how good this class really will be. I cannot remember a class like this since the NCAA-imposed limit of 25 scholarships, for any program that didn't win a MNC the previous season.

I know how most on here feel about Notre Dame but you also have to give a tip of the cap to Weiss. He has recruited one hell of a class under much more difficult circumstances. You can't be a typical run of the mill AU Sociology Major and enroll at the Gold Dome. Standards are almost impossibly high to run a powerhouse program.

 

[BigAl_RTR]

;yo Bama's future is looking so bright I got to wear shades. ;yo

 

[TerryP]

He's right on the number being very, very different. When I looked at it last year Saban was just ahead of Shula.

I'll have to take the time to look at it again, but I do think he's a bit off if he is crediting the right players from the '07 class to Shula and the correct ones to Saban.

I'm also seeing a lot of "rankings don't matter" coming from those rival fans. Honestly, it sounds just like what I heard Bama fans stating the last few years and I kept my mouth shut about it to avoid controversy.

Fact is, rankings do matter. If you look at the last few National Championships you'll see a common theme with all of the teams. Very high recruiting rankings...

 

[shipley00]

Fact is, rankings do matter. If you look at the last few National Championships you'll see a common theme with all of the teams. Very high recruiting rankings...

Couln't agree more. I fall in the "ranking don't mean everything". A region talk show that will remain nameless has a "recruiting guru" on, talking about 5 star recruits that "live up to their hype". That couldn't be a more subjective statement if they tried. (their number was 30%). Fact is the vast majority of 5 and 4 star players at a minimum make significant contributions. They may not be studs, but they are starters, by and far.

I'll leave the "evaluating talent" argument for a later discussion, but I whole-heartedly agree, ranking do matter.

 

[Guest]

He's right on the number being very, very different. When I looked at it last year Saban was just ahead of Shula.

I'll have to take the time to look at it again, but I do think he's a bit off if he is crediting the right players from the '07 class to Shula and the correct ones to Saban.

I'm also seeing a lot of "rankings don't matter" coming from those rival fans. Honestly, it sounds just like what I heard Bama fans stating the last few years and I kept my mouth shut about it to avoid controversy.

Fact is, rankings do matter. If you look at the last few National Championships you'll see a common theme with all of the teams. Very high recruiting rankings...

Umm....I don't see where he mentioned 2007 at all. I assumed that it was intentionally omitted since Shula was gone and Saban did not have long to recruit.

In 2007, Alabama signed 5 players rated 4 star. Of those 5, two were committed to Alabama before Shula was fired - one of those was a sign and place... The other three - Luther Davis, Jermaine Griffin, and Brandon Gibson, committed to Saban.

 

[TerryP]

Fact is, rankings do matter. If you look at the last few National Championships you'll see a common theme with all of the teams. Very high recruiting rankings...

Couln't agree more. I fall in the "ranking don't mean everything". A region talk show that will remain nameless has a "recruiting guru" on, talking about 5 star recruits that "live up to their hype". That couldn't be a more subjective statement if they tried. (their number was 30%). Fact is the vast majority of 5 and 4 star players at a minimum make significant contributions. They may not be studs, but they are starters, by and far.

I'll leave the "evaluating talent" argument for a later discussion, but I whole-heartedly agree, ranking do matter.

To add to that, you'll see people point to a 5 star that didn't pan out.

Sure, it happens.

But, for every one 5 star player that doesn't pay out you can have 5+ 3 star players that don't.

Hell, look at Shula's classes, littered with 3 stars...

 

[Guest]

Fact is, rankings do matter. If you look at the last few National Championships you'll see a common theme with all of the teams. Very high recruiting rankings...

Couln't agree more. I fall in the "ranking don't mean everything". A region talk show that will remain nameless has a "recruiting guru" on, talking about 5 star recruits that "live up to their hype". That couldn't be a more subjective statement if they tried. (their number was 30%). Fact is the vast majority of 5 and 4 star players at a minimum make significant contributions. They may not be studs, but they are starters, by and far.

I'll leave the "evaluating talent" argument for a later discussion, but I whole-heartedly agree, ranking do matter.

To add to that, you'll see people point to a 5 star that didn't pan out.

Sure, it happens.

But, for every one 5 star player that doesn't pay out you can have 5+ 3 star players that don't.

Hell, look at Shula's classes, littered with 3 stars...

This was posted by Volhalla on Gridscape:

(talking about the Coaches All-SEC team)

Of the 56 players named to the 1st and 2nd teams, 54 were recruited athletes while two were walk-ons (Alabama DB Rashad Johnson & Arkansas OL Mitch Petrus).

Here's the breakdown of the 54 players who were actual signees:

5*: 7 (13.0% of the 54)
4*: 17 (31.5%)
3*: 22 (40.7%)
2*: 8 (14.8%)
Mean * rating: 3.43

Most players on the '07 All-SEC team signed during the period 2003-2005. In those three years, SEC programs signed 875 rated players and 3 unrated. The signee breakdown by stars:

5*: 25 (2.9% of 875)
4*: 195 (22.3%)
3*: 373 (42.6%)
2*: 282 (32.2%)
Mean * rating: 2.96

Now per each star rating, here's the ratio of All-SEC honorees to the number of signees:

5*: 4.48:1
4*: 1.41:1
3*: 0.91:1
2*: 0.46:1

So 4* and 5* recruits represented 44.5% of the All-SEC team, but they made up just 25.2% of all rated SEC signees (1.77:1 ratio).

A 5* recruit was approximately 10 times more likely to make All-SEC than a 2* one, and a recruit rated 4* or 5* was twice as likely to be All-SEC as a 3* one.