I guess it depends on which site you follow. On3 Rivals has us now at #8 and tu at #10.

Look at the average recruit ranking. It's more accurate. Last I saw we were number 4 based on that criteria.

We got studs. Develop them and fill other needs through the portal. The most important positions IMO are the OL and DL. We always need to be good there.

I saw somewhere tu was #1 this season in talent which probably skewed their BS FPI and played a hand in them being the preseason #1 and a natty favorite for anyone that doesn't actually watch football

I believe Penn State was also pretty high in the talent ratings and why they started #2, and both teams will fail to make a 12 team playoff

AggieDub14 said:

---

Recruiting rankings are the most meaningless metric in the sport.

---

This is simply not true. There is an irrefutable correlation between rankings and success.

With the transfer portal volume, recruiting rankings become less important. Still good to get high school talent but you have to hold it.

pirmag said:

---

With the transfer portal volume, recruiting rankings become less important. Still good to get high school talent but you have to hold it.

---

Texas A&M has one of the richest bankrolls in college football....I dont think they will have a problem holding on to it in my opinon.

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Recruiting rankings are the most meaningless metric in the sport.

---

This is simply not true. There is an irrefutable correlation between rankings and success.

---

Lol

I'd still rather have a great recruiting class than not, but with the transfer portal, recruiting rankings matter a lot less now than they used to. Few freshman are big time contributors, and those that are can get poached for bigger paydays after only a year.

And if you miss on an evaluation and player, you can always pick them up after a year or two when they've developed further. Look at our best pass rusher. Think he was only a 3* with limited offers coming out of HS.

I guess.

All I know is we have 23 blue chip players and a great kicker enrolling this spring. And it is rare for a promising Ag freshman to portal elsewhere.

Sure it happens, but generally only if they feel they can't get playing time by their junior year. Not because of NIL. I'd much rather be in our position than a couple higher rated classes with much less top to bottom talent. Especially as we continue to add a handful of portal players each year.

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Recruiting rankings are the most meaningless metric in the sport.

---

This is simply not true. There is an irrefutable correlation between rankings and success.

---

Not for us there isn't. See number one recruiting class of all time.

AggieDub14 said:

---

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Recruiting rankings are the most meaningless metric in the sport.

---

This is simply not true. There is an irrefutable correlation between rankings and success.

---

Not for us there isn't. See number one recruiting class of all time.

---

And we're 11-1. Best record in almost 100 years.

Let's look at the last 10 years. National champion and recruiting rank 3 years earlier:

2015 Bama #1
2016 Clemson #11
2017 Bama #1
2018 Clemson #9
2019 LSU #5
2020 Bama #1
2021 Georgia #6
2022 Georgia #3
2023 Michigan #4
2024 Ohio State #2

Our #1 class is gone homie

I remember celebrating 3-4 of the 4-star players... and we couldn't sniff a 5 star

Look how far we've come...

AggieDub14 said:

---

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Recruiting rankings are the most meaningless metric in the sport.

---

This is simply not true. There is an irrefutable correlation between rankings and success.

---

Not for us there isn't. See number one recruiting class of all time.

---

That #1 class largely never saw the field for us. It was a paper tiger and nothing more.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

The problem with "9" is that a team with 1-15-3 recruits is functionally behind a team with 1-10-20 recruits. Volume matters more in these rankings than quality of class.

If you look at average: we are 5th, behind LSU, Bama, Oregon, ND.

---

Maybe you missed the part where we had Twenty-Two (22) Four-Star 4**** recruits in our class. The same as the number 1 class and more than everyone else.

We are kinda good at this. Let Elko cook. We have the portal up next and we have a good track record there. Far better than our peers.

I get that argument. But that class is still going to produce more nfl players from it than most of our histories average recruiting classes. The problem with that class was in large part due to a coaching change, we lost so much of that nfl talent

Jimbo failed before that class really got to take control on the field. No one is taking about recruiting true freshman and then looking at results the next season. Recruiting correlation usually shows up 3 years later. Even when Ohio state recruits the number one class, only a handful play in year one and maybe 7-8 in year 2.

Also, a few examples don't really negate a correlation either way. It's still strongly correlated, even if jimbo failed.

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Recruiting rankings are the most meaningless metric in the sport.

---

This is simply not true. There is an irrefutable correlation between rankings and success.

---

Not for us there isn't. See number one recruiting class of all time.

---

And we're 11-1. Best record in almost 100 years.

Let's look at the last 10 years. National champion and recruiting rank 3 years earlier:

2015 Bama #1
2016 Clemson #11
2017 Bama #1
2018 Clemson #9
2019 LSU #5
2020 Bama #1
2021 Georgia #6
2022 Georgia #3
2023 Michigan #4
2024 Ohio State #2

---

Not sure what you are looking at with Michigan but that's certainly not accurate.

Their composite rankings the 4 years on campus leading up to their national title were:

10, 13, 9, 17.

I agree that there is a correlation, but I think some of these numbers may be a little off and or misleading

beerad12man said:

---

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

texag101 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Recruiting rankings are the most meaningless metric in the sport.

---

This is simply not true. There is an irrefutable correlation between rankings and success.

---

Not for us there isn't. See number one recruiting class of all time.

---

And we're 11-1. Best record in almost 100 years.

Let's look at the last 10 years. National champion and recruiting rank 3 years earlier:

2015 Bama #1
2016 Clemson #11
2017 Bama #1
2018 Clemson #9
2019 LSU #5
2020 Bama #1
2021 Georgia #6
2022 Georgia #3
2023 Michigan #4
2024 Ohio State #2

---

Not sure what you are looking at with Michigan but that's certainly not accurate.

Their composite rankings the 4 years on campus leading up to their national title were:

10, 13, 9, 17.

I agree that there is a correlation, but I think some of these numbers may be a little off and or misleading

---

Talk to Grok. It used 247Sports Composite Team Recruiting Rank. I'm not willing to spend any more time debating (with others) the un-debatable….recruiting rankings correlate with winning.

Daily TexAgs reminder that AI gets more sports trivia wrong than correct.

Yet it still gets posted as fact.

Michigan was 14th in team talent composite in 2023. Maybe they just missed a 1.

But either way, doesn't really matter. Most people know there's an overall correlation.

but there's so many variables it's less than it was 5 and especially 10 years ago and maybe moving forward less and less.

There's too much circular logic in recruit rankings.

If some combination of oSu, Oregon, Alabama and Georgia (for instance) offer a kid, his ranking shoots up. How could those schools NOT have a top rated class? It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I quit following recruit ranking services years ago due to that.

TX AG 88 said:

---

There's too much circular logic in recruit rankings.

If some combination of oSu, Oregon, Alabama and Georgia (for instance) offer a kid, his ranking shoots up. How could those schools NOT have a top rated class? It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I quit following recruit ranking services years ago due to that.

---

This. Some people have to be told an opinion by someone that says they're an expert in something before they believe it. Even then, once that's been done and they're fully convinced, no amount of facts can change their mind.

TX AG 88 said:

---

There's too much circular logic in recruit rankings.

If some combination of oSu, Oregon, Alabama and Georgia (for instance) offer a kid, his ranking shoots up. How could those schools NOT have a top rated class? It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I quit following recruit ranking services years ago due to that.

---

I get it, but it should be that way. I trust what Ohio state or Georgia says about a player long before pimple faced dorks who work for 247 or on3 say. So yeah, I would expect the guys those teams to go after to be ranked higher. It may be self fulfilling, but it's not like Georgia goes after 15 players that teams like Nevada and Iowa state say nope, not good enough here. When Georgia goes after a guy, 90+% of the time, the entire country would sign him too. If Georgia took a bunch of kids who no one else was offering, I can all but guarantee you they wouldn't be rated higher. But they are taking kids who everyone in the country wants the majority of the time

But that's the whole idea behind trying to figure out who is recruiting pins for pound the best. Who wins the head to heads with the big boys

You are doing better in recruiting when you do that.

But recruiting is only one part. Evaluation and development matter beyond that. Not to mention attrition due to injuries or off the field stuff, work ethic, etc. So it's an inexact science.

But in terms of trying to rank who had the best pure recruiting, beating out the big boys for head to head wins seems to be the best metric and should correlate to higher recruiting rankings.

beerad12man said:

---

TX AG 88 said:

---

There's too much circular logic in recruit rankings.

If some combination of oSu, Oregon, Alabama and Georgia (for instance) offer a kid, his ranking shoots up. How could those schools NOT have a top rated class? It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I quit following recruit ranking services years ago due to that.

---

I get it, but it should be that way. I trust what Ohio state or Georgia says about a player long before pimple faced dorks who work for 247 or on3 say. So yeah, I would expect the guys those teams to go after to be ranked higher. It may be self fulfilling, but it's not like Georgia goes after 15 players that teams like Nevada and Iowa state say nope, not good enough here. When Georgia goes after a guy, 90+% of the time, the entire country would sign him too. If Georgia took a bunch of kids who no one else was offering, I can all but guarantee you they wouldn't be rated higher. But they are taking kids who everyone in the country wants the majority of the time

But that's the whole idea behind trying to figure out who is recruiting pins for pound the best. Who wins the head to heads with the big boys

You are doing better in recruiting when you do that.

But recruiting is only one part. Evaluation and development matter beyond that. Not to mention attrition due to injuries or off the field stuff, work ethic, etc. So it's an inexact science.

But in terms of trying to rank who had the best pure recruiting, beating out the big boys for head to head wins seems to be the best metric and should correlate to higher recruiting rankings.

---

It seems Jimbo put a lot of trust the pimple faced dorks that work at those sites. Same could be said for Sumlin. And obviously the zoo.

beerad12man said:

---

TX AG 88 said:

---

There's too much circular logic in recruit rankings.

If some combination of oSu, Oregon, Alabama and Georgia (for instance) offer a kid, his ranking shoots up. How could those schools NOT have a top rated class? It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I quit following recruit ranking services years ago due to that.

---

I get it, but it should be that way. I trust what Ohio state or Georgia says about a player long before pimple faced dorks who work for 247 or on3 say. So yeah, I would expect the guys those teams to go after to be ranked higher. It may be self fulfilling, but it's not like Georgia goes after 15 players that teams like Nevada and Iowa state say nope, not good enough here. When Georgia goes after a guy, 90+% of the time, the entire country would sign him too. If Georgia took a bunch of kids who no one else was offering, I can all but guarantee you they wouldn't be rated higher. But they are taking kids who everyone in the country wants the majority of the time

But that's the whole idea behind trying to figure out who is recruiting pins for pound the best. Who wins the head to heads with the big boys

You are doing better in recruiting when you do that.

But recruiting is only one part. Evaluation and development matter beyond that. Not to mention attrition due to injuries or off the field stuff, work ethic, etc. So it's an inexact science.

But in terms of trying to rank who had the best pure recruiting, beating out the big boys for head to head wins seems to be the best metric and should correlate to higher recruiting rankings.

---

You make a lot of sense.

Another data point:

Team; # of NFL draft picks since 2020

Bama; 59
Georgia 55
Ohio State 45

Teams who consistently recruit the best.