re: Rivals' Bama bias...

quote:

---

Bama has always had a better recruiting class than us and they always seem to beat us so...

---

You only have to look waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back to LAST Year, Idiot.

Will this stop already? Tim Williams dropped out of the 100. Their formula weighs in position ranks heavily. Who cares?

doesn't matter...you have to play the game. if we feel confident with who we have as compared to the gumps, then the on field play will tell the rest...assuming equal coaching and preparation.

Alabama has the #11 and #16 players in the nation. Both are 5 stars.

LSU has the #18 and #23 plays in the nation. Both are 5 stars.

In terms of 4 stars
#36 Alabama
#46 Alabama
#50 LSU
#53 Alabama
#66 Alabama
#68 LSU
#73 LSU
#77 Alabama
#79 Alabama
#92 LSU

quote:

---

There was some uproar a couple years back when Bama had a recruit listed as the #1 Center, giving the maximum number of points, even when everyone knew he wasn't going to play center in college.

---

Wasnt that Barrett Jones...if so...he ended up playing center in college.

On the Rankings:
What matters in general is being in the top 5 - 7 in the country year over year. Even that though is not as important as filling your needs and managing your roster.

Bama is excellent at identifying kids who fit their mindset and scheme. That mixed in with some dang good luck and favorable voting patterns is why they are where they are (keep in mind that the only reason Bama plays in the BCS Champ game the last two years is untimely losses by others and not getting dropped far in the polls when they lose...though that isnt to say they werent the clear best team).

quote:

---

That was Barrett Jones.

---

Just looked through the last 5 years and yep it was Jones. Interesting that everyone threw a fit back then and it took until his 5th year to play the position.

The emphasis Rivals puts on position rating is pretty absurd. It should be a very small piece of the overall puzzle.

ETA: I didn't realize Warmack was only a 5.5 3 star coming out. The sites always struggle with OL rankings.

quote:

---

OL and WR is where I find they miss the most, but in different ways. OL they miss on guys by under rating them. WR they over rate so many guys.

Both of those things are probably rooted in the fact that HS OL are not going against other D1 guys very often, and HS WRs rarely have D1 QB throwing to them while they go against D1 DBs.

---

You bring up good points. OL also have so many variables in terms of how their bodies change over 4 or 5 years. You can easily take a guy that is 6'5 220 in highschool that looks like a TE and turn him into a 6'5 290 LT within a couple years.

Many of the best tackles were projected as TEs. OL is where good coaching makes a tremendous difference on a how a kid pans out.

WRs can show out in high school if they are a good athlete...but it takes more than being a good athlete to make it at the next level. WRs can make nice highlight reels, but it is hard to tell what they will do against much better competition when they can't get off the line of scrimmage freely.