Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 59

Thread: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

  1. #1

    Default Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    I did some research on our Recruiting Team Rankings by Scout.com since 2003 and here are the final results.

    Year Rank
    2011 86 -- currently tied with Pittsburgh-not done yet....
    2010 110
    2009 119 -- Next to Last Place
    2008 111
    2007 116 -- 4 spots from Last Place
    2006 106
    2005 94
    2004 109
    2003 114 -- 6 spots from Last Place

    It is totally amazing what Coach Hudspeth has been able to do in the short time he has been here. Just think what he is going to do next year.


  2. #2

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Not to nit-pick but it looks like we are 86th. Still, point well taken: we are recruiting much stronger than before Hud. And I agree Coach and his staff are not done yet. We know there is someone special to announce on Feb. 2, the Advertiser story says we picked up another recruit last night, and if Griffin can make his standardized test scores, and actually be ranked at his position, we could jump ten schools. Of course, this is a fun game, recruiting, but means little without wins.I am, however, confident that the wins will come.


  3. #3

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    We must remember that ranking are graded out by the total number of stars given out, so in years we have a big recruiting class such as this year we will by just pure numbers alone because everyone is given at least 2 stars we will be ranked higher. We are signing more players than we have scholarships for. Some will not qualify and some will greyshirt. This is how the SEC teams are ranked so high in recruiting each year because they have been practicing over signing for some many years.

    That said I like the class Hud is putting together.


  4. #4

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    These rankings are always skewed. We are signing more than 25 players while some teams such as a Pitt may only sign 16 but have several 4 star and many 3 star athletes. It usually has more to do with numbers rather than quality of the players signed. It doesn't mean much to me.


  5. #5

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Broadway will also count towards this year so watch the ranking increase.


  6. #6
    Zeebart21's Avatar Zeebart21 is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Quote Originally Posted by zephyr View Post
    _ These rankings are always skewed. We are signing more than 25 players while some teams such as a Pitt may only sign 16 but have several 4 star and many 3 star athletes. It usually has more to do with numbers rather than quality of the players signed. It doesn't mean much to me. _
    But, you will agree that HUD and his boys have done a remarkable in a very short time......right?

    Just cant get my Saturday started without something positive, my man!!!

  7. #7

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Quote Originally Posted by cajunhawk View Post
    _ Broadway will also count towards this year so watch the ranking increase. _
    No he won't.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Quote Originally Posted by zephyr View Post
    _ These rankings are always skewed. We are signing more than 25 players while some teams such as a Pitt may only sign 16 but have several 4 star and many 3 star athletes. It usually has more to do with numbers rather than quality of the players signed. It doesn't mean much to me. _
    Thats mostly why the SEC chooses to over sign every year. How low would Bama be if they only signed the same number they lost? How can you boast about a recruiting class like Pitts? It's unfathomable why the NCAA allows this to happen. It's simple, you lose a player, you bring in one. Not lose 13 bring in 23. SEC is basically Scrooge McDuck when it comes to recruits.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel02 View Post
    _ No he won't. _
    I'm talking about on the recruiting sites. They will add him on this Wednesday.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Quote Originally Posted by cajunhawk View Post
    _ I'm talking about on the recruiting sites. They will add him on this Wednesday. _
    I may be wrong but I don't think D1 transfers will add to a recruiting class. It never has before from my knowledge and I would think it would be way too hard for recruiting services to keep up with.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Quote Originally Posted by J-Town Cajun View Post
    _ I may be wrong but I don't think D1 transfers will add to a recruiting class. It never has before from my knowledge and I would think it would be way too hard for recruiting services to keep up with. _
    I was under the impression they did, they just waited until signing day to make it easier to deal with.

  12. Default Re: Recruiting Team Rankings - Historical Results

    Quote Originally Posted by cajunhawk View Post
    It's simple, you lose a player, you bring in one. Not lose 13 bring in 23. SEC is basically Scrooge McDuck when it comes to recruits. _
    Thus the term "a talent graveyard"

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Recruiting 2014 - Sun Belt Team Rankings
    By NewsCopy in forum Polls N Rankings
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 9th, 2014, 06:14 am
  2. Recruiting Team Rankings in Sun Belt-247 Sports
    By 82Cajun in forum Polls N Rankings
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 5th, 2014, 05:05 pm
  3. Historical Rankings
    By leeman in forum Football
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 8th, 2008, 11:43 am
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 12th, 2003, 01:55 pm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •