Think about that.... that is INSANE. The kids we signed yesterday were in the 8th grade the last time Bama didnt sign a top 5 class on rivals.
They were also in fifth grade the last time the SEC didn't win a title.Think about that.... that is INSANE. The kids we signed yesterday were in the 8th grade the last time Bama didnt sign a top 5 class on rivals.
Interesting that we lost 3 games that year. Then again, we finished #1 in 2008 and lost 2 games that year too.the year we werent 1st, we were like 3rd I think....3rd would be considered awesome by almost any program in the country, but to oru fans, it caused a slight panic about what was happening to the football program...why cant we get the recruits, how did 2 teams beat us to the top.
Interesting, but keep in mind that they didnt play in their first season for the most part...they should have had their biggest impact on this season.Interesting that we lost 3 games that year. Then again, we finished #1 in 2008 and lost 2 games that year too.
I pointed this out in early 2008. Rivals' #1 class almost always goes on to win a national title. I think USC 2006 and one of those Florida State #1 classes are the only exceptions.the majority of those Rivals #1 ranked classes have gone on to win the NC.
there is definitely a correlation between winning the recruiting title and the National Title.
usc commits were literally over rated and highly ranked due to their level of competition.On Rivals we are #1 for '08, '09, '11, '12, '13 with '10 being #5.
Three #1 classes in a row is just astounding. 5 of 6 is unheard of. USC had two in a row during their run but what we have done is unprecedented.
If Saban is your coach there certainly is. If it's Mack Brown? Not so much.there is definitely a correlation between winning the recruiting title and the National Title.
Some people seem to think the rankings are useless due to the occasional 2* or 3* star that turns into a superstar or the 5* that turns out to be a bust but I think the team rankings in the past decade proves there is a big time correlation in recruiting success and winning as some have already stated. To those who say that I will put my 4* and 5* players out on the field and play you anytime.2002 Texas - 1 title (2005)
2003 LSU - 2 titles (2003, 2007)
2004 USC - 1 title (2004)
2005 USC - 0 titles
2006 USC - 0 titles
2007 Florida - 1 title (2008)
2008 Alabama - 3 titles (2009, 2011, 2012)
2009 Alabama - 3 titles* (same as above)
2010 USC - 0 titles*
2011 Alabama - 2 titles* (2011, 2012)
2012 Alabama - 1 title* (2012)
* Class still has players with eligibility.
So there is a remote chance USC can add to the numbers with their 2010 class, but the 2005-2006 USC classes were the only rivals #1 not to produce a champion. I'd argue Florida's 2006 class was better from the outset but rivals.com didn't make that decision. Either way, USC had some tough luck on the backend of Carroll's run. They had a few seasons like our 2011-2012 repeat but the PAC-10 was weaker perception-wise.
That is a pretty common mistake humans make in regards to statistical information. We don't naturally have a good complex mathematical understanding beyond basic number line concepts. When presented with large data, we tend to pay too much credence to outlier cases and not enough on the larger trends. Highly though of recruits not panning out makes the news, underrated recruits exceeding their expectations makes a narrative, but the vast majority of players who perform in line with their expectations is not reported.Some people seem to think the rankings are useless due to the occasional 2* or 3* star that turns into a superstar or the 5* that turns out to be a bust but I think the team rankings in the past decade proves there is a big time correlation in recruiting success and winning as some have already stated. To those who say that I will put my 4* and 5* players out on the field and play you anytime.
people take star ratings as predictions of individual success, which, in a way, they are. But, their best predictive value is that a group of four stars is expected to be better than a group of three stars.Some people seem to think the rankings are useless due to the occasional 2* or 3* star that turns into a superstar or the 5* that turns out to be a bust but I think the team rankings in the past decade proves there is a big time correlation in recruiting success and winning as some have already stated. To those who say that I will put my 4* and 5* players out on the field and play you anytime.
You're exactly right. Recruiting projections and star rankings are just predictions, relatively educated predictions, but predictions none the less. There is a range for success and failure and there are outliers within that range for individual players, but if CNS and staff keep signing number 1 classes we'll still end up generally more talented than the teams we're playing against overall. It almost boils down to just a numbers game.people take star ratings as predictions of individual success, which, in a way, they are. But, their best predictive value is that a group of four stars is expected to be better than a group of three stars.
its like someone saying I know an art major who makes twice as much as another guy who was a Pre-Law, therefore, college major has no bearing on income. But, of course, if you have a group of 20 Pre-Law students, they will almost certainly have higher incomes than a group of 20 art majors on average.