Here you go Stallion

[stampedesbabyboy]

This is for you since you put ALL your marbles on (current) recruiting rankings...over future performance !

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... -10-years/

[ponynut]

What's your point?

[Junior]

What's your point?

I didn't get it either.

[PerunaPunch]

What's your point?

The point (I guess) is that Rivals recruiting rankings rarely correlate to wining. For example:

School Ranking Wining %
Florida State 6 36
Notre Dame 14 46
South Carolina 15 55
Texas A&M 16 59
UCLA T17 61
Ole Miss 21 70
North Carolina 23 80

No one is suggesting that better athletes don't equate to winning. Arguing that point is ridiculous. I think what's fairly obvious is that recruiting is an inexact science at best, even from people who know what they're doing (college and pro scouts and coaches). The recruiting services who sit at their computers reviewing stats and assigning stars based largely on what their counterparts in other parts of the country have written and what biased coaches and parents say about athletes the recruiting services have never actually personally scouted is even less exact.

[Stallion]

Reallythat's the point? When 9 out of 12 SEC are in the Top 25 in recruiting somebody has got to lose a little bit. How did those listed teams do in recruiting relative to their competition. For the most part they weren't as successful as many teams in their divisions and conferences. Look at that list of schools-each is generally dominated in recruiting by other schools in their conference-so they are successful in recruiting but are dominated by other schools in their conference in recruiting. The successful outliners like TCU and Boise also were that successful only because they weren't in the BCS once again proving that recruiting is relative to your competition.