Rivals has LSU #1 again. I'm not a recruiting expert and heard it wasn't possible for us to top USC, wonder what pushed us over them we were number 2 even when Early Doucet committed. I know #1 and #2 are essentially close as hell, but I'll take any chance possible to top the frou frou boys of USC and their big "media market". GRITS OVER GLITZ ANYDAY
USC will pass us when they get all of their recruits in based on projections. Many of their guys have not officially committed yet and almost every one of them is a 5 star with a couple of 4 star guys also. we should beat them on overall numbers as they don't have as many schollies to give but on avg. rank of the players they will be #1. But that's also not to say we aren't having a great, great class coming to Tigarland. If we stay in the top 5 every year we will be competing for an SEC & NC every year with this kind of talent. The rankings are wrong on a lot of guys year in and year out but they can't be too far off on a whole class.
Rivals uses a pure points system based on the average number of stars times the number of recruits. Under the Rivals system, USC is way ahead of LSU because it has almost as many points as LSU with only 14 commitments as compared to LSU's 21 commitments. Particularly significant is the fact that USC has 4 five-star and 4 four-star players out of 14 commitments to date, so that their average player ranking is astronomical. If they have anything like the number of recruits we end up with, they will be way in front of everyone in the Rivals ranking system. On the other hand, Travis Daniels was a two-star recruit according to Rivals, so their player rankings are not necessarily accurate. Since LSU is not in a position to have to take players that are less than what the coaching staff wants, I'll trust Nick Saban's evaluation over Rivals. However, it is nice to know that by anyone's system, LSU is doing a good job recruiting and will have a respected signing class for 2004.
USC will probably finish #1 in recruiting but we will finish a very very strong second. USC is having a once in a lifetime recruiting class based on the point system of these sites but what matters is that we are loading up with high quality players that will help us stay ahead of USC where it counts TRUE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! Saban is putting together an outstanding clas once again, nothing wrong with finishing second in recruiting with a class like this.
And we need a great class this year as of now next year's class will have to be weighted with out of state players as the LA class for 2005 is evidentally very average. It will make getting top recruits much harder for us but not impossible as Nick has shown the program can now compete on a national level in recruiting.
Don't put much faith in Rivals star rankings. The breakdown of 4 vs 5 star is almost as arbitrary as the AP writers' opinions. As you could see by OU, having 3 or 4 of the top tiered guys doesn't make the team. The team players make the team. And Nick knows who the team players are. Regardless of rankings by Rivals or anyone else, LSU recruiting classes continue to impress.
You can't say that rating Travis Daniels a 2 star committment was necessarily wrong. You must remember he has been under the tutilage of Nick Saban. Players have the chance to move up or down based on who is coaching them. It's possible Travis was a work in progress when he came to LSU.
Recruiting is far from exact. Think how many busts and suprises there are in the NFL Draft. Recruiting is like that but on a MUCH bigger level.
LSU will finish first ahead of USC. LSU will finish with 28 recruits and USC with 19 or 20. I think they will get only 1 more 5 star player. The sheer numbers will put LSU first. USC getting 6 of the top 25 players in the country is astounding. LSU is gettin 3 of the top 33 with a chance at possible getting Thomas Herring which would give us 3 five star players and 4 in the top 33 (Xavier Carter is ranked 33rd).
We will finish first if they only had up the total points(stars), USC will finish first if they avg. it.
