While I 100% agree it would be better for recruits to sign out of the SEC, this is 100% wrong and yet another example of your flawed, absolutist thinking.
It's not my reasoning that's flawed.
When LSU loses an in-state player that it wants to Alabama, and that it has highly ranked on its own internal boards, and that it has to replace with someone it had less regard for (again, according to its own internal assessment), that weakens LSU and strengthens Bama.
Your entire argument is based on the naked hope that LSU's own internal assessment will prove to be flawed and that the lower ranked, less regarded player will somehow outperform the higher rated, more highly regarded player. I willingly concede that this SOMETIMES occurs, but not typically. The recruiting rankings have been statistically validated ad naseum, repeatedly. On an individual basis, higher ranked players tend to outperform lower ranked players in productivity, post-season awards, and NFL draft status. On a team basis, there is a strong correlation between recruiting rankings (particularly Rivals) and on-field performance. These studies are available. Perhaps you've read some. Anecdotally, it's no suprise that the team which has won three of four national titles has also consistently finished with the number one class over the last half decade.
Moreover, you can't have it both ways when it comes to the coaches. You can't - on the one hand - proclaim that the coaches are good talent evaluators and that we must "trust" them while simultaneously claiming that we should disregard the coaches' own internal rankings when we lose a recruit.
In any case, you seem to agree with me on the main precept here: it's not a good thing for LSU when highly coveted Louisiana recruits sign with Bama, which is what the trend has been. That's really the only point I think the OP was trying to make. It doesn't even seem controversial.
This post was edited on 1/17 at 1:54 pm