Fox tweeted this infographic which looks so good for the SEC - at first glance. I mean after all, there are 9 different SEC teams with multiple 5-star signees over the last 5 years! Great, right?

For Alabama, LSU, Georgia, possibly Auburn, maybe Texas A&M - yes - but what about Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and South Carolina? Has it really helped those schools that they were able to sign these guys? Could it be that (a) those players weren't really deserving of their 5-star rating, or (b) this is a real indictment of poor coaching at those programs? Maybe a combination of a and b?

I looked up the win-loss records of all of those teams in the Fox infographic, along with teams which didn't have multiple 5-stars but did make the playoffs in the last 5 years (yes, there were teams like that!). If you're interested in all of that, it's all here:
https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...yoffs.html

Even if you don't care about those things, I would like to get your comments on this question: is there an SEC bias in recruiting rankings to the point that maybe a 5-star in the SEC equals a 4-star in the Northeast, or a 4-star in the SEC equals a 3-star up North?

...or do you think it's all a function of coaching?

I wonder how many of these 5 stars were products of football academies? What a football coach told me at TN (I am paraphrasing to my best recollection) is that these academy trained kids peak out at 17 or 18 years of age so that they look good from a recruiting stand point. On the other hand, you have normal high school kids that don't get that specialized training and by the 1st and 2nd year in college they caught up to the kids that came out of the academy. I suppose you can look at the academy players as kids who can contribute sooner to their selected college, but not necessarily become better players than 3 or 4 star players by their junior or senior years.

I also think that there are more football camps in the south, so those kids from else where may get over looked and not graded properly. U of Wisconsin I think is a good example of a program that does much better than their recruiting rankings.

Is there an SEC bias toward the rankings? I would guess yes, when evaluating thousands of kids, do you focus in on the kids who got offers from Georgia St, Eastern Michigan, etc.? If they were elite they would get offers from Alabama, LSU, etc. Suppose that same kid with the EMU and GSU offer gets an offer from Alabama? He would naturally get a closer observation and re-ranked.

The problem I have is that if a kid commits to Alabama, then decides to change his commit to Louisville, then he may get dinged in the next re-ranking. I don't know if this is frequent or I just notice when its occasionally brought up.

Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

Some have suggested that the number of fans signed up at some recruiting sites has moved the rankings of some kids in the past. In general though, if a kid was expected to sign with Clemson or Alabama, and they sign with GT or NC State, they are going to drop a little.

I think it’s a function of interest, which is a function of private business.

I’ve just seen way, way too many decommits get upgraded or downgraded in the rankings seemingly based entirely on which school they flip from and which school they flip to. After a while, you start to realize that it’s not a coincidence.

Now, let me also say that I don’t blame those sites one bit for operating that way. They have a business to run. The most prudent way you run a business like that is by playing to the fan bases with the largest, most active, most passionate fan bases. That basically means the SEC and the Big Ten. I would do the same thing if I owned a business dependent on that.

Why do you think television shows are almost always based in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago? Because their studies show that that’s where the majority of their viewers are coming from. It’s really the same idea.

So, one year, you’ll have a hospital drama based in Chicago. Three years later, you’ll have a very similar hospital drama but with a totally different title based in New York. Five years after that, you’ll have the exact same thing, this time based in Los Angeles. That’s just how it goes in popular media.

Mike Golic (ESPN) told a story about his son getting downgraded from a 4-star to a 2-star. Junior had gotten a scholarship to Notre Dame (I think) so he quit going to the camps, etc. Who ever does the rankings downgraded him because of it. He had his scholarship so he had nothing to gain and figured it would be more time for someone else.

(07-18-2020 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

A legitimate concern, so I checked:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...-wins.html

No, the SC Gamecocks had significantly higher-rated signing classes and still performed below the Tar Heels in every way measurable.

(07-20-2020 01:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

A legitimate concern, so I checked:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...-wins.html

No, the SC Gamecocks had significantly higher-rated signing classes and still performed below the Tar Heels in every way measurable.

How can you compare the Coastal with the SEC East?

Elon or Furman could might win the Coastal.

On top of their SEC schedule, SC has to play Clemson.

In the last 5 years SC has played 7 top 10 schools. (Ranked at year end) 8 more ranked in the top 25.

UNC has played 3 top 10 games - two against Clemson. Just 4 more have been played against the top 25.

Most importantly Carolina gets to miss FSU and Clemson 4 out of every 6 years avoiding a game against a team with significantly more talent that can effectively beat you the week before or after.

(07-20-2020 08:11 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 01:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

A legitimate concern, so I checked:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...-wins.html

No, the SC Gamecocks had significantly higher-rated signing classes and still performed below the Tar Heels in every way measurable.

How can you compare the Coastal with the SEC East?

Elon or Furman could might win the Coastal.

On top of their SEC schedule, SC has to play Clemson.

Now you're just trolling...

(07-20-2020 08:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 08:11 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 01:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

A legitimate concern, so I checked:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...-wins.html

No, the SC Gamecocks had significantly higher-rated signing classes and still performed below the Tar Heels in every way measurable.

How can you compare the Coastal with the SEC East?

Elon or Furman could might win the Coastal.

On top of their SEC schedule, SC has to play Clemson.

Now you're just trolling...

Okay your right - ODU instead.

Elon or Furman could might win the Coastal.

I think the team you are thinking about is Wofford (Southern Conference Champs - 2003, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2018, 2019)

(07-20-2020 01:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

A legitimate concern, so I checked:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...-wins.html

No, the SC Gamecocks had significantly higher-rated signing classes and still performed below the Tar Heels in every way measurable.

What would UNC's record have been playing five teams that finished in the Top 25 including three top 10 teams vs playing three teams that finished ranked and one top ten team? How would UNC have fared had they lost Howell after the first game and replaced him with someone who had never taken a college snap?

(07-24-2020 03:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 01:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

A legitimate concern, so I checked:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...-wins.html

No, the SC Gamecocks had significantly higher-rated signing classes and still performed below the Tar Heels in every way measurable.

What would UNC's record have been playing five teams that finished in the Top 25 including three top 10 teams vs playing three teams that finished ranked and one top ten team? How would UNC have fared had they lost Howell after the first game and replaced him with someone who had never taken a college snap?

IDK. What would SC's record have been if they had Mack Brown coaching them?

(07-24-2020 06:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 01:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a school gets a few 5-star recruits doesn't mean that they are going to be deep enough with talent to win against the likes of Alabama, LSU and the other top teams in the SEC. It doesn't mean that the kids were overrated, or that they were poorly coached. If you are the only stud on your team's D-line, maybe you are just getting double teamed more. That's not to say that some kids aren't overrated - just that you can't generalize based on their team's performance.

A legitimate concern, so I checked:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...-wins.html

No, the SC Gamecocks had significantly higher-rated signing classes and still performed below the Tar Heels in every way measurable.

What would UNC's record have been playing five teams that finished in the Top 25 including three top 10 teams vs playing three teams that finished ranked and one top ten team? How would UNC have fared had they lost Howell after the first game and replaced him with someone who had never taken a college snap?

IDK. What would SC's record have been if they had Mack Brown coaching them?

If it's just Mack probably not much different. Their biggest problem last year was becoming one dimensional once Bentley went down.

(07-16-2020 11:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Fox tweeted this infographic which looks so good for the SEC - at first glance. I mean after all, there are 9 different SEC teams with multiple 5-star signees over the last 5 years! Great, right?

For Alabama, LSU, Georgia, possibly Auburn, maybe Texas A&M - yes - but what about Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and South Carolina? Has it really helped those schools that they were able to sign these guys? Could it be that (a) those players weren't really deserving of their 5-star rating, or (b) this is a real indictment of poor coaching at those programs? Maybe a combination of a and b?

I looked up the win-loss records of all of those teams in the Fox infographic, along with teams which didn't have multiple 5-stars but did make the playoffs in the last 5 years (yes, there were teams like that!). If you're interested in all of that, it's all here:
https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...yoffs.html

Even if you don't care about those things, I would like to get your comments on this question: is there an SEC bias in recruiting rankings to the point that maybe a 5-star in the SEC equals a 4-star in the Northeast, or a 4-star in the SEC equals a 3-star up North?

...or do you think it's all a function of coaching?

i definately think there is a bias towards southern states. For example Florida, Texas California and Georgia are given the benefit of the doubt with regards to recruiting stars. I think it is because there is more talent in those states and it is easier to compare top notch talent there. In other regions such as New York and Massachusetts where there is less talent, it is harder to judge how good a standout player is because the competition is not as good.

I think a better way of actually figuring out how good the coaching is to count the number of players in the NFL versus the number of 5 star, 4 star, 3 star and 2 star recruits. If a team has a lot of 5 star and 4 star recruits along with a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are at worst neutral at developing talent. If a team has a lot of 3 star and 2 star recruits but puts a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are exceptional at developing talent.

(07-25-2020 10:10 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I think a better way of actually figuring out how good the coaching is to count the number of players in the NFL versus the number of 5 star, 4 star, 3 star and 2 star recruits. If a team has a lot of 5 star and 4 star recruits along with a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are at worst neutral at developing talent. If a team has a lot of 3 star and 2 star recruits but puts a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are exceptional at developing talent.

^^^ This ^^^

(07-25-2020 10:10 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I think a better way of actually figuring out how good the coaching is to count the number of players in the NFL versus the number of 5 star, 4 star, 3 star and 2 star recruits. If a team has a lot of 5 star and 4 star recruits along with a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are at worst neutral at developing talent. If a team has a lot of 3 star and 2 star recruits but puts a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are exceptional at developing talent.

Up until a few years ago the NFL and college football were completely different animals. QB's who thrived in college like Tebow, Jason White, etc. were unable to make it in the NFL because while very talented they did not fit the NFL style. That's changing some, but it's still a poor indicator.

(07-26-2020 02:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:10 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I think a better way of actually figuring out how good the coaching is to count the number of players in the NFL versus the number of 5 star, 4 star, 3 star and 2 star recruits. If a team has a lot of 5 star and 4 star recruits along with a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are at worst neutral at developing talent. If a team has a lot of 3 star and 2 star recruits but puts a lot of players in the NFL then that means that the coaches are exceptional at developing talent.

Up until a few years ago the NFL and college football were completely different animals. QB's who thrived in college like Tebow, Jason White, etc. were unable to make it in the NFL because while very talented they did not fit the NFL style. That's changing some, but it's still a poor indicator.

Perhaps for quarterback it is not a good indicator but I think for offensive line and defensive lines and linebackers it is a good indicator. Also running backs and defensive backs should be similar between the NFL and college.