Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks Beat Lakers With Familiar Strategy

The 2009 Team Speed Kills 12

By now, you've probably already checked out the SEC recruiting ranks from Scout and Rivals.

And while I generally agree with Year 2 when it comes to following the recruiting season blow-by-blow, I do think it's worth taking a look at once players actually sign. By and large, the final rankings are a good way to measure the general talent level coming into a particular school. This is quite an evolution for your humble correspondent, who once viewed the rating services as slightly less accurate than government economists and slightly more creepy. (I still see them as slightly more creepy, but I digress.)

Scout and Rivals agree on the general outlines of the 2009 SEC recruiting classes. All, save Kentucky and Vanderbilt, are Top 25 material. Alabama and LSU are 1-2 (or 2-1, depending on who's ranking them) and two of the top three teams in the nation. Houston Nutt recruited entire high school teams to come play for him.

There are also a few significant disagreements. Florida comes in fourth in the conference according to Rivals, but ninth according to Scout. Auburn is fifth according ot Scout, eighth per Rivals.

Let us, however, combine the two systems, average them out and take a look at what that tells us. Because all recruiting rankings must have a self-promotional title including at least one number, we'll call it the Team Speed Kills 12 just for fun.

2009tsk12_medium
(If necessary, click for larger version)

A few caveats here: First of all, Scout awards far larger point totals than Rivals, so that is to be taken into account when looking at the points numbers. And, because it needs to be said just so no one is confused, no one signed half a player of any type. Florida, for example, signed four 3-star players according to Rivals and seven according to Scout. All of that to say that these numbers are even farther from being scientific than the original ratings and rankings, but they give us an idea.

One thing that stands out is that, when we're talking about the total talent haul, Alabama and LSU didn't just beat the field -- they blew it out of the water. There's roughly the same gap between No. 2 Alabama and No. 3 Georgia as there is between the Dawgs and No. 11 Kentucky. (And then there's Vandy. As usual -- sorry, Vandy.) The SEC West could get very interesting in about two or three years, as if the annual Nick Saban vs. Les Miles match-up wasn't intriguing enough to begin with.

After you look at the Scout and Rivals rankings individually, it's not really surprising that Tennessee came in 10th when the two were averaged together. Except that you realize that Tennessee came in 10th, well behind the other three SEC East teams that have consistenly played at, around or above .500 for the last eight years or so and just ahead of rising Kentucky and potential upstart Vanderbilt.

Yes, the ugly unwinding of the Fulmer Era and the beginning of the reign of the Lane Kiffin Familia played into that, but one could deflect that by saying "Auburn," which didn't do a great job but ended up with more points than the Vols after the handing of power to the Chizik Junta. In any case, this is not how Boy Wonder wanted to start. Tennesee has lost to South Carolina two of the last four years after regularly penciling in the Gamecocks as a "W"; ending up with less talent on signing day is not the best way to begin regaining the dominance that locked the Vols into the "Big Three" clique in the East.

That said, Tennessee does far better when considering the average quality of the individual athlete. The Vols came in fifth in terms of the average star rating of its recruits, but still well below Florida and Georgia in the actual number -- Tennessee's recruits are, on average, almost half a star below the Gators' and the Dawgs' -- and just one spot ahead of South Carolina in the rankings.

The most fascinating thing about the averages chart, though, is how the SEC recruiting contest suddenly becomes a four-team race between No. 1 Florida, No. 2 Georgia, No. 3 LSU and No. 4 Alabama. Again, LSU and Alabama are bringing in more talent, but not a better grade of talent. The dominant teams are stocking their shelves differently, but they are still getting plenty of good players.

I do consider Kentucky and Vanderbilt surprises. I expected Kentucky to do better than, say, Mississippi State; Rich Brooks seems to have the Wildcats moving in the right direction, and who knows whether Dan Mullen is the man to turn around the usually dreadful Bulldogs or not. And we all knew Vanderbilt was going to be last, but the gap, coming just more than a month after the team's first bowl-game appearance in a quarter century, was larger than I expected.

With recruiting, it seems, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Comment 10 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Maybe I don't understand the chart,

but I disagree with the “better grade of talent” thing. LSU and Alabama both brought in more 5 and 4 stars than Florida and Georgia. What hurt them was the fact that they also brought in more 3 stars than Florida and Georgia, thus Florida and Georgia have a higher star average.

but again, maybe I’m not understanding it correctly.

by jsholt969 on Feb 5, 2009 7:00 PM EST reply actions  

It's the proportions, not just the numbers

Percentage of recruits that are five-stars:
Florida 21.88 percent
LSU 20.00 percent
Alabama 12.96 percent
Georgia 11.11 percent

Percentage of recruits that are four-stars:
Georgia 63.89 percent
Alabama 48.15 percent
Florida 43.75 percent
LSU 42.00 percent

Percentage of recruits that are three-stars:
Alabama 38.89 percent
LSU 38.00 percent
Florida 34.38 percent
Georgia 25.00 percent

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Feb 5, 2009 8:23 PM EST up reply actions  

I understand that,

but it makes sense to me that if Alabama and LSU are bringing in more 5 stars, 4 stars, AND 3 stars, that they are bringing in the higher grade of talent. The fact that Florida and Georgia have a higher percentage just means they aren’t recruiting as many players, not that they’re bringing in a higher grade.

by jsholt969 on Feb 7, 2009 7:41 AM EST up reply actions  

I didn't say Florida and Georgia were bringing in a higher grade of talent

Here’s what I said:

LSU and Alabama are bringing in more talent, but not a better grade of talent.

My point was that average recruit for Florida and Georgia was about the same quality, or maybe a little bit better than the average recruit for LSU and Alabama. Some schools don’t recruit as many players because they don’t have as many open scholarships. I don’t think a school that recruits more player should be rewarded just because they’re recruiting more players.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Feb 7, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions  

The most comparable comparison is a modified average

Since the 4 teams in question had varying numbers of recruits and higher stars tend to turn out to have better college careers, then I believe the best comparison is to take the the top recruits based upon the number of recruits signed by the team with the fewest recruits. Florida only signed 16 so you take the top 16 recruits for LSU, Alabama, GA & FL. Using that methodology the rankings would be:

LSU 4.28
Alabama 4.22
GA 3.97
FL 3.88

by simpleman on Feb 6, 2009 11:48 PM EST reply actions  

But that's not the average recruit for LSU and Alabama

And that’s why I put both charts in the story. I don’t think it’s fair to a school to reward it in the average category just because it recruits more players, which in many cases is just a function of how many scholarships you have. You’re not taking the entire class into account. Do you think that Alabama wouldn’t have gotten a five-star guy instead of one of the three-star guys at that position if they could have? Of course not.

If you’re going to artificially shrink the size of the class, why stop there? Why not then average the top two recruits, and the classes turn out to all be tied?

On the other hand, I also don’t think the average tells the whole story, because it doesn’t account for the overall effect of a recruiting class. If you bring in more five star or four star players, you’re going to have a big impact on your roster.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Feb 7, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Agree that the average of the smaller number is lower to the bigger class

But it does reward LSU & Alabama for getting more 4&5 stars than Florida & Georgia who moved ahead of them based on an average of a smaller pool. That was my point, Alabama & LSU had better classes than Florida & Georgia, even if none of their extra 3 stars ever pan out. If Alabama could have only signed 16 and they signed their top 16 then their class is better than Florida. The fallacy in my argument is that none of these systems take into account who is going to qualify which would explain why if you only have 16 you may not take a chance on some of the 4 & 5 stars that Alabama signed. That is the penalty Florida gets in my average. I feel signing more 3s offsets that becuse Alabama has a chance to have 20- 25 qualify and be on the team and therefore some of those 3s will pan out and contribute over their career.

by simpleman on Feb 7, 2009 6:35 PM EST reply actions  

The quote was:

LSU and Alabama are bringing in more talent, but not a better grade of talent.

My point was merely that if you take the average Georgia of Florida recruit, they are on par or maybe a touch better than the average LSU or Alabama recruit. But I also explicitly said LSU and Alabama are bring in more talent than Florida or Georgia.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Feb 8, 2009 12:35 AM EST up reply actions  

There's one problem with that explanation, however.

And that is that you don’t know if Alabama would have taken the same 16 guys if they’d only had 16 available scholarships. Looking at Alabama’s class, we have:

One QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, 7 OL, 6 DL, 4 LB, 2 DB (27 total). We know they’re going to cut two of those (or grayshirt or they won’t qualify), but let’s say they keep the same ratios when they go to 16 players. That means 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 4 OL, 4 DL, 2 LB, 1 DB. If that’s true then they keep (based on stars):

McCarron (4*)
Richardson (5*)
Lacy (4*)
Two WR (4* each)
Fluker (4.5*)
Carpenter (4*)
Moore (4*)
One 3* OL
Ming (4*)
Stentimore (4*)
Stinson (3.5*)
One 3* DL
Johnson (5*)
Patrick (4*)
Kirkpatrick (5*)

giving them an average of 4.07. Still good enough for 2nd place, but not quite as great as taking the top 16 kids and just adding them up. And it undoubtedly gets worse if you divide the DL into DE and DT and the OL into OG and OT, which I am too lazy to do.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Feb 9, 2009 1:11 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the SEC

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Hatbeard__2__small
More Rumors on LSU Locker Room
X2_6e41244_small
Finally some proof that the SEC is the best conference
Small
College Revenues 2011
4238784107_small
Richt the Rule Breaker?
Small
A Fair Way to Determine the National Champion
Dool-aid_small
With Due Respect to Rick Reilly
Small
Playoff Idea: The World Cup of College Football

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Gabalogo2_small cocknfire

Gator-f__custom__small Year2

Authors

Kleph_logo_copy_small kleph