BCS championship game player star ratings

[KPENN]

Rivals.com College Football - BCS star power: How they rated as recruits

Pretty interesting

 

[phgreek]

Rivals.com College Football - BCS star power: How they rated as recruits

Pretty interesting

indeed, very interesting...would like to see a bigger sample, say over the last 10 years.

earlier in the year, someone posted some stats regarding Kelly's ability to get more out of the low star folks than anyone in the last 3-4 years based on record etc.

that bodes well for our future...regardless of star power.

 

[IrishLax]

The fact that 8 out of 42 players were 2* and below is crazy. Very interesting and confirms what I've always thought. He are some basic premises:

1. Stars matter for skills positions much more than they matter for power positions. If you're going to get 5* players get them at QB, WR, and RB.

2. Measureables and your ability to develop players matters the most for guys in the trenches. If you can get lots of big, strong, fast guys the chances are good that some of them will turn into great players.

3. The SEC wins because they cheat the system. If everyone recruited ~100 guys and then lost 15 through some excuse the playing field would be level... but in this case SEC schools can cast a large net on unranked or 2*/3* guys (especially on defense) and then figure out who develops well and who doesn't.

4. I heard a guy on ESPNU say that DL/OL is the hardest to project from HS to college because you just can't tell how the players will adjust to facing guys they don't have an inherent size advantage over. This just reaffirms his point and reemphasizes why it's most important to use "extra" schollies on the line whenever possible versus using them on a stable of QBs or RBs.

 

[Riddickulous]

Naw.

Auburn and Oregon are benefiting from this being one of the years where this isn't a single complete football team in the country.

 

[nlroma1o]

Naw.

Auburn and Oregon are benefiting from this being one of the years where this isn't a single complete football team in the country.

You are absolutely correct. The number of traditional powerhouses that are rebuilding this year is into the double digits. I would say Auburn got much more lucky than Oregon though. The only reason they were able to take the SEC this year was because florida, georgia, lsu, and alabama were at their weakest in the past 5 years. IMO

 

[Riddickulous]

You are absolutely correct. The number of traditional powerhouses that are rebuilding this year is into the double digits. I would say Auburn got much more lucky than Oregon though. The only reason they were able to take the SEC this year was because florida, georgia, lsu, and alabama were at their weakest in the past 5 years. IMO

LSU was 11-2.

But yes. When it comes to traditional powers, 2010 was a serious down year.

Texas was 5-7 (IMO, it strengthens my belief that Mack Brown is an immensely overrated head coach), Florida was 8-5, USC was 8-5, Alabama was 10-3 (and gift-wrapped Auburn their victory in the Iron Bowl by blowing a 24-0 lead), Georgia was 6-7, etc.


Auburn is set for an absolutely disastrous season in 2011, IMO, even with Cam Newton. They 4 OL, possibly Cam Newton, and 7 starters on what already is a mediocre defense, possibly 8 if Nick Fairley declares. They also play at Clemson, at South Carolina, at LSU and at Georgia. Also have home games against Florida (who will have a stellar defense under Muschamp) and Alabama (national title competitor).