TOP 150 Recruits ESPN, Scout, Rivals, Max Preps, 247: Conference Breakdown

Maestro's picture
February 1, 2012 at 11:31p
12 Comments

Just found this interesting because I saw on the crawl that of the ESPN U Top 150 that 53 of them signed with SEC schools today according to the WWL.  So I got curious and checked out Scout and Rivals, here is the breakdown

ESPN Top 150

SEC : 53

PAC : 24

ACC : 23

Big XII : 21

B1G : 12

Rivals Top 150

SEC : 41

PAC : 32

ACC : 26

Big XII : 16

B1G : 15

Scout Top 150

SEC : 47

PAC : 26

B1G : 24

ACC : 17

Big XII : 16

Max Preps Top 150

SEC : 39

PAC : 29

B1G : 25

ACC : 18

Big XII : 14

247 Top 150

SEC : 43

PAC : 28

ACC : 22

B1G : 17

Big XII : 15

Of course you have to account for the SEC having 14 teams, but they dominated all the lists.  However, they were really dominant on the ESPN list and not so surprisingly the B1G had the fewest top 150 on the ESPNU list.  Just found it interesting.  After a while you just have to laugh.

 

Comments

Colin's picture

It's kind of a sad realization that the B1G is just a bad football conference right now. Way too top heavy.

Baroclinicity's picture

As I read somewhere else, maybe on here or a link from here, it was basically Ohio State and Michigan, and then the drop off was crazy bad.  While I'm happy we did really well, the rest of the conference after Michigan is basically eating pavement.

poop's picture

The B1G is still waaaaay better than the ACC and pretty much even with the Pac-12. Recruiting rankings aren't everything.

cplunk's picture

You have to divide the number by the total number of teams in the conference for that to mean anything.

In the end it is what it always is- there is a select group of blueblood schools that have won for decades and decades consistently, and generally they are the recruiting leaders with one or two other schools rotating in each decade.

The bluebloods are easy to name- Notre Dame, Florida State, Tennessee, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Oklahoma, Texas, USC. 

You can argue for LSU and I won't laugh at you. If you argue for Miami or Florida, then I know you dn't care about anything prior to 1980. 

It should come as no surprise that all those schools are in the top ten in all time wins. 

If you want the top ten in championships since 1936 (when polls started), its all from that group plus Miami, Florida, and (shocker) Minnesota.

Really, those are your true competitors. And if you're wondering, your top ten on Rivals are all from that group, plus Miami and Stanford.

It should be no shock that those are the recruiting powers.

Maestro's picture

All good points, but not exactly what I was trying to show with the numbers above.

vacuuming sucks

cplunk's picture

I get that- my point is more that conference comparisons are meaningless. The blue bloods are the blue bloods, and the other schools in each conference really don't matter much in the big picture. They have a good year here or there, but who cares? 

 

Yamosu's picture

I mean, I love that the Big 10 has great tradition and its teams success dates back decades and for really most of the century.  That said, as a state of football now, who would you rather be, Michigan or Florida.  I'd take florida any day of the week. 

Recruiting is the foundation of college football and I am very concerned for the state of the Big 10.  The big 10 needs to start paying more for head coaches and assistants.  The assistants pay in the big 10 is significantly less than that of the SEC and other conferences.

The NCAA also needs to come up with more restrictions across college football in regards to recruiting.  Oversigning is a major advantage in the SEC.  I do not support oversigning, but the Big 10 handicaps itself by preventing schools to signing more than 3 players while the SEC really has no similar regulations.

The big 10 will continue to go 2-5 every year unless something is done to start filtering more football talent into the big 10.

DMcDougal24's picture

I normally agree about bias and ESPN going hand in hand, but there's no reason for the ESPN call out here. First, SEC whooped on the B1G on all sites. Second, ESPN picks their "top 150" a year before signing day when most of them are not committed and have racked up tons of offers. To say that their 150 is biased toward the SEC is inaccurate because most of the players have yet to commit. 

Now, if you want to argue that ESPN places too much value on players in the south, that's another story which I would agree with.

Maestro's picture

You said it in your last sentence.

vacuuming sucks

DJ Byrnes's picture

I pray for the day OSU leaves the Big Ten. 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

GlueFingers Lavelli's picture

I wouldn't want to leave the B1G, too much tradition. I just think people in the North and Midwest in general need to take football as serious as people do in the south. It deeply pains me to say this, but its true. Yes Ohio State, Michigan and PSU take football very serious, but when you look at the rest of the conference and region, its not as "do or die" as it is elsewhere. The state of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota care more about Pro Sports than anything else. Wisconsin has a decent fan base, but at the end of the day, It's all about the Packers. 

It's the opposite scenario in the Southeast. They don't have many Pro football teams, but alot of Schools big on Football. Many people in the south refuse to root for the Falcons outside of Georgia, because they might hate UGA, but they they Falcons will always take a backseat to Georgia football.  I know the point I'm trying to make might be hard to understand. I have family in Tennessee who could give 2 shits less about the Titans, but are total diehard Tennessee fans. Theres much more loyalty in College Sports, Free agency doesnt corrupt the team values. People can get to know a team over the years, and its easier to follow than the Circus that is Pro Football free agency. 

I wish people in the midwest would pull together and get more serious about football in our region. It seems like when everyone ran I-Formation offenses and played smashmouth, the B1G was tough. Maybe we need to get back to that. The southeast, (as arrogant as they can be) own college football, because thats all they care about. Maybe the crappy economy has something to do with it. 

Anyone else have an opinion on the topic?

Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.

GlueFingers Lavelli's picture

I currently live and work in Indiana, 10 minutes from the OHIO border. I'm from a small town in OHIO, but since Ive moved over here I've noticed that Indiana has some of the most bandwagon fans ever. It's sad. Purdue, IU, and Notre Dame along with the Colts. It's a joke. Manning misses the season and no one follows the Colts. No one at B-dubs wearing Colts attire.  Indiana hoops starts strong(easy schedule) and they come out of the woodwork.... IU is back... look out its on now!, then they lose a few and NO ONE talks. Purdue has been a mess since Joe Tiller left. Notre Dame fans are so unrealistic its hilarious. They seem to still feel entitled to top notch treatment although they haven't been nationally relevant since they fired Lou Holtz. Notre Dame has to have the toughest schedule in college football in 2012, but the fans will say they'll run the table until the fumble the ball 5 times, then no one care about football, on to the next season(hoops). 

My other theory is that kids who grow up in the midwest are becoming "a soft bunch" due to cell phones and video games. Kids in the South might not have as much money, but they don't grow up spoiled whine-asses.... they grow up playing outside. The Suburbia craze in America is turning men into emotional, sensitive, fashionistic sissy boys.   Take 11 kids from a poor neighborhood in North Carolina, and put them up against 11 kids from an Indiana upscale subdivision.... who's gonna win?  the kids with a chip on their shoulder, or the kids with nicer clothes and shoes?   

Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.