"Team Talent Composite" on 247Sports

[TDs3nOut]

Just ran across this and found what I thought was an interesting ranking, namely, that Florida State had the fourth most talented team in the country, while my lowly Houston Cougars were the 73rd most talented team, one spot below our AAC rival UCF, a team that finished 0-12.

2015 College Football Team Talent Composite

I'm sure that there other inconsistencies between the team talent rankings and scoreboards. Feel free to chime in.

 

[Jakology]

Says since 2000. Looks about right.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Says since 2000. Looks about right.

LOL So embarrassing to have made the thread about it without having read the fine print in the title. Carry on.

 

[The Crimson King]

I believe that's 2011-2015 recruits. Don't know why it says 2000

 

[B_dub]

Pretty impressive for USC to be that high even under sanctions.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Just ran across this and found what I thought was an interesting ranking, namely, that Florida State had the fourth most talented team in the country, while my lowly Houston Cougars were the 73rd most talented team, one spot below our AAC rival UCF, a team that finished 0-12.

2015 College Football Team Talent Composite

I'm sure that there other inconsistencies between the team talent rankings and scoreboards. Feel free to chime in.

Holy Shit Alabama. Leave some for the rest of us.

But this link would have been very useful in my debates with @7Samurai13 prior to the season.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I believe that's 2011-2015 recruits. Don't know why it says 2000

Maybe it's saying that this resource has been available since 2000? No way it includes all recruits since 2000. Michigan has had more than a couple five stars and the total counts only add up to about what a roster equals -- 85.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Alabama having 18 5 stars says it all. USC is 2nd with 10

 

[Shanemansj13]

I believe that's 2011-2015 recruits. Don't know why it says 2000

I was thinking the same. With every team averaging about 20-25 recruits a year, that makes more sense.

 

[Tharvot]

Pretty impressive for USC to be that high even under sanctions.

Until you look at their on the field results and they seem to have drastically underperformed.

 

[Texas Jefe]

Alabama having 18 5 stars says it all. USC is 2nd with 10

As for Alabama, it shows that having stacks of the really talented players, equates to better chances for success.

As for just about the rest of us, shows that high school rankings are not a 100% certainty of real success in college. It's just, the more you have, odds go up.

 

[Texas Jefe]

Plus, you have to have talent in ALL the areas: cant be overloaded on one aspect of the game and ignore or fail to recruit, others.

Key to Alabama is they stack 'em at every position, just about.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Until you look at their on the field results and they seem to have drastically underperformed.

It's because they keep hiring joke candidates as their head coaches.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

As for Alabama, it shows that having stacks of the really talented players, equates to better chances for success.

As for just about the rest of us, shows that high school rankings are not a 100% certainty of real success in college. It's just, the more you have, odds go up.

True, it's all about odds -- but five stars have pretty ridiculous odds of succeeding in college. They are usually freaks of nature when it comes to their size and athletic abilities. So when they do succeed it's crazy and when a 3 star succeed, they're usually under sized or something that prevents them from truly being elite.

 

[Shanemansj13]

As for Alabama, it shows that having stacks of the really talented players, equates to better chances for success.

As for just about the rest of us, shows that high school rankings are not a 100% certainty of real success in college. It's just, the more you have, odds go up.

Yeah, pretty much. When you have double the 5 stars as the next team and basically triple amount or more of other top teams you should have success every year and play for a national title most years and Alabama has done that. I mean when you have that much talent it is kind of ridiculous. USC has failed mightly.

 

[Shanemansj13]

True, it's all about odds -- but five stars have pretty ridiculous odds of succeeding in college. They are usually freaks of nature when it comes to their size and athletic abilities. So when they do succeed it's crazy and when a 3 star succeed, they're usually under sized or something that prevents them from truly being elite.

5 stars actually have really good odds of getting drafted in the 1st round and very good odds in the first couple as well. So having 5 stars actually is a very big deal.

 

[Deep Creek]

Until you look at their on the field results and they seem to have drastically underperformed.

I was thinking there are several on that list that have underperformed. Air Force has overperformed at 148 IMHO.

 

[Texas Jefe]

Yeah, pretty much. When you have double the 5 stars as the next team and basically triple amount or more of other top teams you should have success every year and play for a national title most years and Alabama has done that. I mean when you have that much talent it is kind of ridiculous. USC has failed mightly.

I'd love to be a recruiter to USC. Could really pad your 'recruiting' stats.

 

[Deep Creek]

5 stars actually have really good odds of getting drafted in the 1st round and very good odds in the first couple as well. So having 5 stars actually is a very big deal.

Odds are we can predict who the final four will be in 2018-19 based on the results of National Signing Day next month. Many of the games for the 2018 season are won/lost on Feb 3, 2016.

 

[Deep Creek]

So, right now, according to this, the final four in two years should be:
1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Michigan
4. Florida State

2016 Football Team Rankings