re: Updated -Rivals 100 and 250

These lists are fun. But are very biased and not very credible.

Still makes the offseason more bearable

quote:

---

I'm surprised about Louis not being in it. Probably next time, and a good shot at 4 stars tomorrow

---

I agree with this. I think he is the only other Louisiana prospect that deserved a top 250 ranking. He may still get a 4th star tomorrow.

quote:

---

Finish top 10 across the board, and the talent is in place to compete for titles.

---

Completely agree.

quote:

---

1) what was Bowden doing so wrong?




2) what was preventing Jimbo from this type of thing while still just the OC?

---

1. A lot of problems, mainly he lost control, hired coaches that shouldn't have been coaching college let alone HS. Bobby was relying on talent instead of player development. A whole lot of other BS. Coaches fighting(fist fight in front of the players on a number of occasions).

2. At FSU Jimbo had no control or input into the program. Even though he was HCIW, he was about 4th or 5th in the chain of command. He controlled the offense only.

A class in the Top 10 usually means you have a few national Top 50 guys. Those are the can't miss, any idiot realizes they are bad arse recruits.

But sorting through players that are mid to low 4 star, compsred to mid-high 3 star is tough. There really isn't that much of a difference.

And again, one of the major things that these sites look at is offer list. When a player (that's not the obvious 5 star) commits early they haven't accumulated a large offer list yet. But, if they are signed with a name brand program (Texas, USC, Ohio St, etc) they get the bump up. While if they signed with a lesser school (think Missouri, Miss St, Iowa type school) they don't get that bump but instead get a 3 star rating.


I personally like the Texas rankings that Billy Luicci of TexAgs puts out. He's seen most of those kids play and not just a short highlight film, and his lists are pretty stable

Geoff Ketchum's Texas list of players is a joke. It changes often and for obvious reasons

Peter Jenkins is a good example. He's ranked at 101. He tried to commit to A&M earlier this year but he didn't have a committable offer from Sherman so he committed to Mack Brown instead.

It's believed that A&M felt he was undersized and not as good as a LB prospect as Jordan Richmond, Troy Green, Danzel Devall, Lorenzo Phillips, or Tim Cole (who also eventually committed to Texas).

But the Texas commitment has Jenkins ranked high by Rivals

quote:

---

Peter Jenkins is a good example. He's ranked at 101. He tried to commit to A&M earlier this year but he didn't have a committable offer from Sherman so he committed to Mack Brown instead.

---

Uh huh...... Do you realize how unbelievable that looks?

Thanks Egg.

quote:

---

I personally like the Texas rankings that Billy Luicci of TexAgs puts out. He's seen most of those kids play and not just a short highlight film, and his lists are pretty stable

Geoff Ketchum's Texas list of players is a joke. It changes often and for obvious reasons

---

Let me get this straight.. You think one side is impartial and yet you think the guy other guy is spot on.... If you haven't noticed yet, both pander to their readership and neither are really going to be unbiased. You are better off just looking at the national lists or even better get an aggregate rating. Ketch is a joke, but the think that Lucci isn't skewed is just deluding yourself.

I could care less what Rivals says. The kid plays well sideline to sideline and hits like a truck. Is he a little light ATM? Yes. However, I've a hard time believing he couldn't call up A&M and commit if he wanted to. Last time I checked, A&M was signing UT's leftovers, it wasn't the other way around.

Don't believe everything your "insiders" tell you.