Avg Star Ratings for Teams in Recruiting Over the Past Five Years

[LSUFan21]

I just saw this on Tigerdroppings and thought it was really interesting. A couple of guys went back and ranked the teams 1-119 according to their average star ratings on Rivals over the past 5 years. In other words, you have from Freshmen to 5th year Seniors listed. While far from exact considering those star ratings are just a projection, it does give you an idea of the talent level of teams at this point. I thought it might make for some interesting discussion over here so I'll post it:

Rank School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average
1 USC 4.05 3.95 3.96 4.22 3.89 20.07 4.014
2 Florida 3.52 3.39 3.89 3.89 3.82 18.51 3.702
3 LSU 3.54 3.69 3.64 3.88 3.58 18.33 3.666
4 Oklahoma 3.72 3.63 3.54 3.38 3.81 18.08 3.616
5 Texas 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.79 3.55 18.04 3.608
6 Georgia 3.57 3.58 3.64 3.48 3.67 17.94 3.588
7 Ohio State 3.24 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.79 17.93 3.586
8 Michigan 3.59 3.48 3.63 3.4 3.67 17.77 3.554
9 Florida State 3.59 3.82 3.68 3.2 3.33 17.62 3.524
10 Miami-FL 3.36 3.82 3.36 3.21 3.33 17.08 3.416
11 Notre Dame 2.83 3 3.46 3.72 3.96 16.97 3.394
12 Tennessee 3.25 3.63 3.09 3.63 3.06 16.66 3.332
13 Alabama 2.89 3.03 3.61 3.28 3.72 16.53 3.306
14 Penn State 3 3.05 3.63 3.14 3 15.82 3.164
15 Auburn 2.67 3.19 3.52 3.37 3.03 15.78 3.156
16 California 3 3.38 3.3 3 3.05 15.73 3.146
17 Nebraska 2.83 3.33 3.27 3.33 2.96 15.72 3.144
18 UCLA 2.62 3 3.23 3.27 3.52 15.64 3.128
19 Clemson 2.38 3.08 3.4 3.22 3.42 15.5 3.1
20 South Carolina 2.61 2.96 3.08 3.42 3.18 15.25 3.05
21 Texas A&M 2.93 3.23 2.96 2.89 3.17 15.18 3.036
22 Maryland 3 3.08 3 2.85 3.11 15.04 3.008
23 Oregon 3 2.87 2.67 3.24 3.25 15.03 3.006
24 Virginia Tech 2.74 3.08 3 2.73 3.1 14.65 2.93
25 Arizona 2.44 3.17 3.28 2.72 3 14.61 2.922
26 Oklahoma State 2.68 2.76 3.03 3.04 3.04 14.55 2.91
27 Arkansas 2.67 3 2.96 2.93 2.88 14.44 2.888
28 Arizona State 2.64 2.82 3.04 2.63 3.15 14.28 2.856
29 Ole Miss 2.71 2.56 3.17 3.09 2.71 14.24 2.848
30 North Carolina 2.58 2.5 2.93 3 3.16 14.17 2.834
31 Boston College 2.8 2.81 2.85 2.83 2.83 14.12 2.824
32 Virginia 2.74 3.14 2.67 3.04 2.5 14.09 2.818
33 Pittsburgh 2.25 2.54 3.08 3.04 3.16 14.07 2.814
34 Iowa 2.6 3.22 2.7 2.95 2.54 14.01 2.802
35 Texas Tech 2.69 2.67 2.88 2.73 3 13.97 2.794
36 Missouri 2.58 2.83 2.63 2.89 3 13.93 2.786
37 Michigan State 2.93 2.75 2.84 2.7 2.71 13.93 2.786
38 Washington 2.78 2.54 2.82 2.81 2.92 13.87 2.774
39 Kansas State 2.81 2.9 2.52 2.67 2.94 13.84 2.768
40 Wisconsin 2.48 2.74 2.7 3.06 2.83 13.81 2.762
41 Illinois 2.29 2.57 2.89 3 3 13.75 2.75
42 Colorado 2.53 2.68 2.61 2.68 3.24 13.74 2.748
43 NC State 2.89 2.83 2.45 2.64 2.88 13.69 2.738
44 Kansas 2.42 2.65 2.72 2.57 3.1 13.46 2.692
45 Louisville 2.13 2.59 2.92 3.06 2.59 13.29 2.658
46 Purdue 2.7 3 2.38 2.68 2.48 13.24 2.648
47 Georgia Tech 2.22 2.37 2.69 3.3 2.64 13.22 2.644
48 Stanford 2.58 2.81 2.44 2.63 2.71 13.17 2.634
49 Oregon State 2.68 2.6 2.6 2.51 2.72 13.11 2.622
50 West Virginia 2.41 2.48 2.63 2.96 2.63 13.11 2.622
51 Minnesota 2.25 2.67 2.33 2.46 3.07 12.78 2.556
52 Rutgers 2.33 2.32 2.52 2.83 2.65 12.65 2.53
53 Miss State 2.23 2.56 2.67 2.62 2.56 12.64 2.528
54 Washington State 2.61 2.5 2.57 2.44 2.23 12.35 2.47
55 TCU 2.38 2.38 2.56 2.54 2.4 12.26 2.452
56 Iowa State 2.43 2.52 2.5 2.44 2.33 12.22 2.444
57 South Florida 2.46 2.43 2.36 2.48 2.46 12.19 2.438
58 Syracuse 2.22 2.4 2.43 2.56 2.54 12.15 2.43
59 Kentucky 2.44 2.15 2.53 2.31 2.5 11.93 2.386
60 Northwestern 2.13 2.5 2.24 2.74 2.3 11.91 2.382
61 Utah 2.24 2.29 2.17 2.32 2.73 11.75 2.35
62 Southern Miss 2.22 2.3 2.29 2.16 2.78 11.75 2.35
63 BYU 2.3 2.31 2.12 2.46 2.52 11.71 2.342
64 San Diego St 2.39 2.56 2.28 2.27 2.19 11.69 2.338
65 Wake Forest 2.19 2.26 2.4 2.3 2.47 11.62 2.324
66 Baylor 2.05 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.45 11.53 2.306
67 UCF 2.05 2.16 2.29 2.31 2.61 11.42 2.284
68 Duke 2.08 2.26 2.38 2.19 2.41 11.32 2.264
69 Fresno State 2 2.16 2.35 2.27 2.41 11.19 2.238
70 Boise State 2.07 2.44 2.17 2.24 2.26 11.18 2.236
71 Vandy 2.11 2.08 2.27 2.5 2.19 11.15 2.23
72 Cincinnati 2.06 2.04 2.44 2.26 2.25 11.05 2.21
73 Indiana 2.24 2.13 2.25 2.15 2.26 11.03 2.206
74 UAB 2.14 2.19 2.54 2.04 2.08 10.99 2.198
75 Hawaii 2 2.21 2 2.42 2.3 10.93 2.186
76 Memphis 2.21 2.06 2.12 2.22 2.29 10.9 2.18
77 Marshall 2.09 2.05 2.13 2.15 2.38 10.8 2.16
78 Tulsa 2.19 2.32 2.06 1.87 2.3 10.74 2.148
79 UNLV 2.09 2.17 2.15 2.32 2 10.73 2.146
80 SMU 2.05 2.23 2.13 2.17 2.14 10.72 2.144
81 Troy 2.04 2.09 2.12 2.22 2.24 10.71 2.142
82 Akron 2 2.17 2.17 2.19 2.18 10.71 2.142
83 Conneticut 2.04 2.27 1.96 2.24 2.14 10.65 2.13
84 Wyoming 2.05 2.11 2.05 2.29 2.14 10.64 2.128
85 LA Tech 2.03 2.04 2.11 2.27 2.19 10.64 2.128
86 North Texas 2.11 2.04 2.12 2.06 2.3 10.63 2.126
87 East Carolina 2.18 2 2.15 2.15 2.14 10.62 2.124
88 UTEP 2 2.1 2.1 2.26 2.12 10.58 2.116
89 Mid Tenn State 2.17 2.08 2 2 2.29 10.54 2.108
90 Colorado State 2.15 2.11 2.13 1.96 2.16 10.51 2.102
91 Houston 2.08 2.08 2.04 2.14 2.16 10.5 2.1
92 Toledo 2 2.09 1.95 2.32 2.13 10.49 2.098
93 New Mexico 2.04 2.12 2.04 2 2.18 10.38 2.076
94 Kent State 2 2.08 2 2.08 2.18 10.34 2.068
95 Utah State 2.17 2 2.04 2 2.1 10.31 2.062
96 Rice 2 2.05 2.06 2.13 2.06 10.3 2.06
97 Western Michigan 2.05 2.08 2 2.04 2.12 10.29 2.058
98 Northern Illinois 2.05 2.17 2.06 2 2 10.28 2.056
99 LA Monroe 2 2 2.13 2 2.14 10.27 2.054
100 Arkansas St 2.04 2.09 2.05 2.04 2.04 10.26 2.052
101 LA Lafayette 2 2.13 2.05 2.06 2 10.24 2.048
102 Miami-OH 1.96 2 2.05 2.17 2.06 10.24 2.048
103 San Jose St 2 2.08 2.04 2.05 2.06 10.23 2.046
104 Ball State 2 2 2.13 2 2.1 10.23 2.046
105 Idaho 2 2 2.05 2.05 2.1 10.2 2.04
106 Temple 2.03 2.03 1.89 2.13 2.08 10.16 2.032
107 Nevada 2 2.05 1.96 2 2.14 10.15 2.03
108 Tulane 2.17 2.05 2 1.92 2 10.14 2.028
109 Bowling Green 2.06 2 1.96 2.1 2 10.12 2.024
110 Eastern Michigan 2 2 2 2.04 2.04 10.08 2.016
111 Ohio 2 2 1.95 1.91 2.2 10.06 2.012
112 Central Michigan 2 2.04 2 1.94 2.05 10.03 2.006
113 Buffalo 2 2 2.13 1.9 2 10.03 2.006
114 New Mexico State 2 2 1.76 2.1 2 9.86 1.972
115 Air Force 1.67 1.5 1.65 1.73 1.93 8.48 1.696
116 Navy 2 2 1.18 1.33 1.75 8.26 1.652
117 Army 1.33 2 1.05 1.65 2 8.03 1.606118 Illinois State 1 1.33 1.33 1 0.94 5.6 1.12
119 Chattanooga 2.33 0.67 0.67 0.44 0 4.11 0.822
Rank School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average

 

[DiamondDust]

Just a tidbit -

A star rating is not a projection of talent but a projection of the immediate impact a player will have. A 5 star can have an immediate impact on a team but his talent might have maxed out. A 1 star can be just as talented as that 5 star, but it will take him longer to progress.

As a result, count me as one who gets tired of hearing all the hype about 5 stars and such.

 

[bayoutider]

Just as interesting would be how many of each class actually made it on campus or onto the field.

 

[LSUFan21]

Just as interesting would be how many of each class actually made it on campus or onto the field.

Yeah, people were saying that on the other board. That would be pretty difficult and time consuming to find out, but it would be interesting.

 

[BigEasyTider]

Yeah, people were saying that on the other board. That would be pretty difficult and time consuming to find out, but it would be interesting.

It would be nice to know that, but man that's a huge undertaking we are talking about. Even if you narrowed it down to the BCS conference schools, that's still extremely tough. You could get it done, to be sure, but it would take a lot of time by a few people.

Either way, all I know is that we would drop. Several of our top signees did not quality out of high school, and that would certainly drop us in the ratings. Mike Ford, Michael Ricks, Marcus Udell, Kerry Murphy, Jerami Holified, Antonio Forbes, etc.

And if you projected these out and factored out kids who turned into casualties after only a year or two, we'd fall much further. A ton of our more highly-touted prospects the past several years have bit the dust after a short period of time on campus. You could name a ton... Chris Turner, Chris Keys, Curtis Dawson, Jimmy Barnes, Tremayne Coger, Alex Stadler... the list goes on and on.

Anyway, thanks for the list, and kudos to whoever took the time to put all of that together.

 

[LSUFan21]

It would be nice to know that, but man that's a huge undertaking we are talking about. Even if you narrowed it down to the BCS conference schools, that's still extremely tough. You could get it done, to be sure, but it would take a lot of time by a few people.

Either way, all I know is that we would drop. Several of our top signees did not quality out of high school, and that would certainly drop us in the ratings. Mike Ford, Michael Ricks, Marcus Udell, Kerry Murphy, Jerami Holified, Antonio Forbes, etc.

And if you projected these out and factored out kids who turned into casualties after only a year or two, we'd fall much further. A ton of our more highly-touted prospects the past several years have bit the dust after a short period of time on campus. You could name a ton... Chris Turner, Chris Keys, Curtis Dawson, Jimmy Barnes, Tremayne Coger, Alex Stadler... the list goes on and on.

Anyway, thanks for the list, and kudos to whoever took the time to put all of that together.

A Bama fan really should take the time to do it, though. You guys have been making this case for a few years and it would be helpful to your cause to show people in real numbers that Bama is not as talented as your star ratings say. The fact that no Bama players were drafted last year stated your case, but doing this type of research would prove it that much more. For as many dedicated fans as there are out there, I am sure that someone would love taking it on and settling this once and for all.

One other thing: How does USC not have more championships? How did they lose to Stanford? Geez. Is there a more talented team that underperforms as much as USC does?

Put Georgia on that list as well.

 

[ncbama]

A lot of people on TideFans say stars don't matter. Normally they say that when Auburn gets a four star and we get a three. However, if we get a four and they get a three, then stars matter.

As for me, give me four and five stars and a good coach and I'm happy. I'm not happy with two and three stares no matter who the coach is.

However, look at Wake Forest. They rarely get a four. Their recruiting is almost all two and three. Yet, look at what they have done. They have been fairly good the past two years, although much of that may be due to the fact that schools like Miami, UNC, FSU etc. have been down. It will be interesting to see how well Wake does as those normal powerhouses get back to normal. I am convinced that Grobe is a very good coach, but no matter how good he is, he will almost never go all the way with two and three stars.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

A Bama fan really should take the time to do it, though. You guys have been making this case for a few years and it would be helpful to your cause to show people in real numbers that Bama is not as talented as your star ratings say. The fact that no Bama players were drafted last year stated your case, but doing this type of research would prove it that much more. For as many dedicated fans as there are out there, I am sure that someone would love taking it on and settling this once and for all.

One other thing: How does USC not have more championships? How did they lose to Stanford? Geez. Is there a more talented team that underperforms as much as USC does?

Put Georgia on that list as well.

There's two parts of the equation this doesn't address that has had more of an impact than recruitment rankings. Coaching/development and the depth issues caused by scholarship reductions. These two aspects have killed us. We've had some talented guys but have not had the second and third level of talent behind them to provide the much needed depth. I don't even need to address the coaching/development aspect. It speaks for itself.

 

[BAMAHD]

A lot of people argue that ratings don't matter but if you take that list every single team in the top ten has at least one National Championship over the past ten years. The top five have dominated over five years

2007 LSU
2006 Florida
2005 Texas
2004 Southern California
2003 LSU Southern California
2002 Ohio State
2001 Miami (Fla.)
2000 Oklahoma:
1999 Florida St
1998 Tennessee
1997 Michigan Nebraska

 

[BigEasyTider]

A Bama fan really should take the time to do it, though. You guys have been making this case for a few years and it would be helpful to your cause to show people in real numbers that Bama is not as talented as your star ratings say. The fact that no Bama players were drafted last year stated your case, but doing this type of research would prove it that much more. For as many dedicated fans as there are out there, I am sure that someone would love taking it on and settling this once and for all.

There's one problem here, my friend...

The average star ratings that were calculated in this include the 2008 recruiting class, and that's really boosting our class. Of course, though, none of those guys have ever got a chance to play for us, and have had no impact on the previous seasons. Considering we signed more four and five star prospects last year than in the previous four years combined, if you just factor out that one class we plummet like a rock. And the same thing, to a lesser extent, goes for the 2007 class as well.

In order to really get an accurate indicator of our teams from 2003-2007, what you need to do is look at the average star ratings from 2000-2004 or so. If you do that, it all of a sudden makes sense. Those years included the classes from the probation era, and I doubt we'd be rated any higher than 8th or 9th using that metric, and we might not even be that high.

Moreover, thanks to probation, you also have consider that there is more to it than just average star rating. The probation era meant that not only were we signing classes with a low average star rating, we were signing classes that were flat-out small. We had a three year stretch were we averaged bringing in only about 17 players a year, and that will have a tangible impact, too.

 

[rgw]

Saban did a good job of getting players who were talented and qualified academically. Sure the call-in show barner crew will make a big deal out of 6 not "making the class", but 6 missing still left us with 26 commits...one more than you are technically allowed to sign (luckily we had two backcounted due to early arrival). Saban signed the class he did because he knew a few guys were eying the pros and a few were on the fringe with grades.

I just don't get why those idiots make a big deal out of 6 guys not coming when half of Auburn's class last year didn't even suit up for the 07 season. I mean a solid 1/3 of the guys were guaranteed cash upfront by pro baseball organizations. None of the six were guys were "make or break" for this class. Not that we couldn't use athletes like Hood, Murphy, Lewis, and Ray...but they simply aren't Lawrence, Harris, Scott, Jones, Love, or Jackson. One of those guys not qualifying would diminishing the overall value of this class. Murphy, well we do have a man-beast JUCO who can probably compete just as well as Murphy for the rotation NT spot. Hood and Ray, well we still have Scott and Jones. Lewis, well at least we still have Hightower and Harris. Etc, etc.

Anyway, on topic. I think that chart shows that Bama is a little more talented than most give them credit. Our best Shula class (2006) has several guys producing right now, but the highlight of the class (the OL) has been a bust outside of Andre. Still...Alexander, McCoy, Grant, Arenas, and Woodall all probably will start against Clemson. The 2005 class (the senior class) was a big bust for the size of the class. Only Washington, Wilson, Hall, Fanney, Deaderick, Coffee, Johns, and Cardwell have meaningfully produced over the classes tenure. One was kicked off the team and another is in the doghouse. Cardwell is a great backup interior linemen...but just that a backup, Deaderick and Fanney have underperformed. Washington and Wilson have become good starters. Coffee has been out too much to gauge. He looks like a good SEC back when healthy.

The 2008 class is big because it may push this team over the top if the small Senior class and the Juniors grow into Saban's system in year two.

 

[CaliforniaTide]

One other thing: How does USC not have more championships? How did they lose to Stanford? Geez. Is there a more talented team that underperforms as much as USC does?

I've heard my USC brother and his friends talk about this, and the consensus seems to be this:

Pete Carroll's first year as a 6-6 year, winning 5 straight games just to become bowl eligible at 6-5, they would lose to Utah in the Las Vegas Bowl (very ugly game to watch by anyone's standards). The following years until last season were like this: Orange Bowl win over Iowa, Rose Bowl win over Michigan, Orange Bowl win over Oklahoma, Rose Bowl loss to Texas, Rose Bowl win over Michigan, and Rose Bowl win over Illinois. The consensus among my brother and his friends (and I guess the majority of USC fans) is that somewhere before the Texas loss, the players they recruited were obviously very very good, but they didn't exactly know how climb the mountain for a national title. The USC team we all saw demolish Oklahoma were essentially led by a senior-dominated defense that had grown up from either not being in a bowl game (under Paul Hackett) to getting increasingly better up to the Orange Bowl game. Now, those players are not playing lights out every weekend, as obvious by sloppy sloppy games with recent losses against Oregon State, UCLA, Stanford, and Oregon. Also, the past two years, they've been hit with timely injuries to the O-line (past two years), FB (two years ago, still use FB a bit) and QB (last year) and I kinda feel that they've also lost enough players to the NFL that it's left them a bit green.

I know that's a long answer but that's the main concept of the USC discussion. I personally feel that if USC's O-line stays healthy this year, they can make a very strong run to a national championship.

 

[BigEasyTider]

21,

Got a bit of research for you.

I went back and crunched the numbers for Alabama from 2002-2005, factoring out all of the academic casualties who never made it to campus. Once you factor those guys out, our average star rating falls to 2.94 over that stretch. Moreover, once you consider that those classes include the probation years, we averaged enrolling only 18 commitments per year, which is surely the lowest of any team in the conference.

So, you put together a below average number in terms of average star rating, and combine that with the smallest overall class sizes of anyone in the conference, and this is what you get.

 

[wastedmason]

There's one problem here, my friend...

The average star ratings that were calculated in this include the 2008 recruiting class, and that's really boosting our class. Of course, though, none of those guys have ever got a chance to play for us, and have had no impact on the previous seasons. Considering we signed more four and five star prospects last year than in the previous four years combined, if you just factor out that one class we plummet like a rock. And the same thing, to a lesser extent, goes for the 2007 class as well.

In order to really get an accurate indicator of our teams from 2003-2007, what you need to do is look at the average star ratings from 2000-2004 or so. If you do that, it all of a sudden makes sense. Those years included the classes from the probation era, and I doubt we'd be rated any higher than 8th or 9th using that metric, and we might not even be that high.

Moreover, thanks to probation, you also have consider that there is more to it than just average star rating. The probation era meant that not only were we signing classes with a low average star rating, we were signing classes that were flat-out small. We had a three year stretch were we averaged bringing in only about 17 players a year, and that will have a tangible impact, too.

Exactly! How can you count coach Sabans 2 year success in recruiting in barely over a years time and figure it into our talent level in games the past 5 years?! Ludicrous!!! Just another opponents fan attempt to down play our recent woes! :biggrin:

 

[LSUFan21]

Exactly! How can you count coach Sabans 2 year success in recruiting in barely over a years time and figure it into our talent level in games the past 5 years?! Ludicrous!!! Just another opponents fan attempt to down play our recent woes! :biggrin:

Actually, I was just posting this as a source of interest to college football fans. I didn't highlight Bama or make any analysis whatsoever regarding Bama. My actual thinking was that it had a lot more to do with looking at this season and how talented teams would be (hence the relevance of counting the last two years of classes) than it did looking at the past, but once we started talking about the past I brought up USC and wondered why they had not done better. As for Bama, I accept what you guys say about small classes and guys not making it on the roster. That makes sense.


Thanks, BET. Those types of numbers are hard to refute. No one doubts that probation has had an effect on the Alabama program. I'm sure you'll turn it around soon.

 

[BigEasyTider]

Exactly! How can you count coach Sabans 2 year success in recruiting in barely over a years time and figure it into our talent level in games the past 5 years?! Ludicrous!!! Just another opponents fan attempt to down play our recent woes! :biggrin:

Actually, I was just posting this as a source of interest to college football fans. I didn't highlight Bama or make any analysis whatsoever regarding Bama. My actual thinking was that it had a lot more to do with looking at this season and how talented teams would be (hence the relevance of counting the last two years of classes) than it did looking at the past, but once we started talking about the past I brought up USC and wondered why they had not done better. As for Bama, I accept what you guys say about small classes and guys not making it on the roster. That makes sense.

Yeah, 21 wasn't really calling anyone out, much less Alabama. You were reading it wrong if that's what you took from it.

 

[wastedmason]

Yeah, 21 wasn't really calling anyone out, much less Alabama. You were reading it wrong if that's what you took from it.

My apologies! Its just that it's so familiar from lesser knowledgeable fans from you know where. The aubies act as we have been atop our game all along, lol! I guess it really shows though the direction a great coach can take you and I know 21 can give an Amen to that!!! Other than Miles still trying to convince LSU fans he is up to par with coach Saban by his sly remarks, I have no quarrel with LSU. In fact Miles is mildly entertaining and in this day and age that may be a plus when it comes to publicity and fan support. Of course you have to walk the walk. So far he isn't doing too bad.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Thanks, BET. Those types of numbers are hard to refute. No one doubts that probation has had an effect on the Alabama program. I'm sure you'll turn it around soon.

You'd be very surprised at how many people think that probation and the reduction of scholarship didn't have much impact in Bama's downfall. People need to realize that sanctions are implemented to punish a program not help it or slap it on the wrist. It's design is to punish and that is exactly what it did to us. It severely hindered our program and set it back damn near a decade.

Sanctions impacts EVERY element that is required in the formula for success.

 

[IMALOYAL1]

Just as interesting would be how many of each class actually made it on campus or onto the field.

Yep. It changes quite bit when the top players never make ti to campus

21,

Got a bit of research for you.

I went back and crunched the numbers for Alabama from 2002-2005, factoring out all of the academic casualties who never made it to campus. Once you factor those guys out, our average star rating falls to 2.94 over that stretch. Moreover, once you consider that those classes include the probation years, we averaged enrolling only 18 commitments per year, which is surely the lowest of any team in the conference.

So, you put together a below average number in terms of average star rating, and combine that with the smallest overall class sizes of anyone in the conference, and this is what you get.

That's more like it, and the best of those probably didn't make it to help the team. That is why Coach keeps referring to the process, asking for penitence from us. It takes a little time to get the athletes, coaching staff and all that goes with it.




:BigA:

 

[IH8Orange]

LSUFan21:

I'm curious to the significance of the teams that are displayed in bold and underlined on your original list. Were those originally links?