LSU might not be the best LSU

[upperdeck]

But ESPN still has them number 5 in the ESPN power and us #12 and we had them on the ropes.

LSU complained about depth but they still have way more than we do.. We finished the game without 2 starting Oline and a starting WR and DE and Safety, that doesnt include Clark who was a 1A if not a 1..

Still a long way to go, but at least you can see the road off in the distance.

 

[PhatOrange]

might not be the best team, and may even finish with a losing record, but nobody should make any mistake about how loaded they are with talent.

LSU's recruiting rankings over the past 5 years

2017 - #8
2016 - #5
2015 - #8
2014 - #2
2013 - #6

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

We finished the game without 2 starting Oline and a starting WR and DE and Safety

Conway only missed 5 snaps. Are you also referring to Roberts?

 

[bcubs9497]

might not be the best team, and may even finish with a losing record, but nobody should make any mistake about how loaded they are with talent.

LSU's recruiting rankings over the past 5 years

2017 - #8
2016 - #5
2015 - #8
2014 - #2
2013 - #6

Kinda lends credence to the argument that recruiting rankings aren't the end-all determinant. More of a snapshot at that moment in time.

 

[TheCusian]

Kinda lends credence to the argument that recruiting rankings aren't the end-all determinant. More of a snapshot at that moment in time.

I don't think that tells the whole story. I do think players can get a lot better, some get mis-identified, etc. But I look at recruiting rankings like the % chance that the player will be good during his career. So a 3* player is like a 40% chance to be good. A 4* might be 70%. And a 5* is like 85%.

When you have top 10 recruiting classes, it's near impossible to miss on all of them over that period of time. They have top end talent.

 

[PhatOrange]

Kinda lends credence to the argument that recruiting rankings aren't the end-all determinant. More of a snapshot at that moment in time.

while I wholeheartedly agree, and many schools have inflated rankings for various reasons, there is a mantra that only bad schools take this stance (recruit rankings don't mean anything; they can't possible rate/see all the kids etc). High recruit rankings are a death sentence for a coach though.

 

[qdawgg]

I did some pretty exhaustive research years ago and it might have been on our previous board, can't remember. But in summary, having more 5 star recruits did not guarantee success at the rates people love to think.

Over a long period of time there were just as many and sometimes more top 25 teams, at the end of the year made up of 3 star recruits as 5 star recruits. I also used data from 3 different ranking services.

There were obvious exceptions for some schools that consistently get 5 star recruits but also have consistent coaching staffs (think Alabama) but at the end of the day, programs were and could be equally successful with 3 star recruits. It did help for some of those schools to have some 4 stars in there too (typically very few had many, if any 5 star recruits).