SEC recruiting battle

I thought some of you might be interested on how the SEC schools are doing in recruiting. LSU got off to a great start with 9 commitments including one 5-Star, 5 4-Stars and three not yet ranked. Here is how the rest is doing.

Alabama - 1 commitment, a 4-Star
Arkansas - 2 commitments, both 4-Stars
Auburn - 2 commitments, both not yet rated
Florida - 2 commitments, both 4-Stars
Georgia - 6 commitments, 2 4-Stars and 4 not yet rated
Kentucky - 2 commitments, both not yet rated
MSU - 3 commitments, all not yet rated
Ole Miss - 1 commitment, not yet rated
South Carolina - 1 commitment, not yet rated
Tennessee - 0 commitments (anyone surprised? I was)
Vany - 0 commitments

Of course I know it is very early and in a few months the race will likely even up. But still it is very encouraging to see LSU dominating everyone this early.

 

LSU's gonna soon wrap it up and focus on next year's class. :wink:

 

Players outside the 250 have not been evaluated/ranked yet.

IMO, Downs is a 4* but outside the 250, if Orelus is a 3* then Rivals missed the boat, and Garrett should move into the Rivals 250.

 

We're off to a much faster start than I can ever remember, that is for sure. Within the next 2 weeks we should have about 11 commits (I'm expect 1 or 2 from the Spring game - no one in particular), which will be 50-60% of our class.

I have been pondering lately if this has any implications for 2010 recruiting, as our staff should have more time available as commits don't require quite as much attention as non-commits. I'm not sure about the exact rules for recruiting Jr's though. I do know that several guys that look to be among the top of next year's class are already favoring LSU (including the top back from Texas & possible top RB in the nation from Arkansas).

 

I am going by Rivals which is more dependable than Scout.com- IMO. Rivals still has not rated Garrett, Downs or Orelus.

 

Rivals isn't any more dependable, accurate or better than scout in evaluating these players, as a matter of fact when it comes to LA players they are worse due to Mike S. being so inept and their Bama influence.

 

Rivals may be more biased, but I trust their rankings more overall. I look at both, but when referencing star rating, the general consensus is to go by Rivals.

 

You may not like Mike, but to call him inept is absurd.

 

they are worse because you think everyone is god, which is natural. mike along with everyone recommends people. bama has no influence, as much as it hurts your opinion.