Hit or Miss

Over the last decade college football recruiting has practically become a sport of its own. And with millions of dollars on the line, things are more competitive than ever. Every program is looking for that stud prospect who can not only make an immediate impact, but also draw other recruits to their school.

Recruiting databases such as Rivals.com do a great job keeping fans in the know. But as far as projecting HS players to the college level, scouting is far from an exact science. These "gurus" often evaluate the very best prospects accurately - but once you get past the top of those lists, it becomes hit-or-miss.

Generally, it takes a recruiting class two years to make an impact on the field. Some kids may play immediately, while others may not touch the field for three or four years. But it's usually a two-year process.

Below I've listed the top sixteen recruiting classes -- according to Rivals.com -- from 2004 to 2006, along with each school's final Coaches Poll ranking two years later. (Note to reader: Teams finishing outside the top sixteen in the final CP are listed as not ranked or "NR")

'04 Recruiting Rankings ('06 Coaches Poll)
1. Southern Cal (4)
2. LSU (3)
3. Florida State (NR)
4. Miami (FL) (NR)
5. Michigan (9)
6. Georgia (NR)
7. Florida (1)
8. Oklahoma (11)
9. Ohio State (2)
10. Texas (13)
11. Tennessee (NR)
12. Oregon (NR)
13. Texas A&M (NR)
14. Penn State (NR)
15. Alabama (NR)
16. Michigan State (NR)

Five schools finished both the '04 recruiting season and the '06 regular season in the top ten. These five schools (Florida, Ohio State, LSU, Southern Cal and Michigan) have elite football programs. So elite, in fact, that six of the last seven BCS National Champions have been among this group.

But as I mentioned before, recruiting rankings don't always translate into on-field success. Programs such as Florida State and Miami (FL) annually rank among the best in the nation in recruiting, but have had a hard time cracking the top sixteen of the Coaches Poll in recent years.

'05 Recruiting Rankings ('07 Coaches Poll)

1. Southern Cal (2)
2. Florida State (NR)
3. Oklahoma (8)
4. Tennessee (12)
5. Nebraska (NR)
6. Michigan (NR)
7. Miami (FL) (NR)
8. Texas A&M (NR)
9. California (NR)
10. Georgia (3)
11. Iowa (NR)
12. Ohio State (4)
13. Auburn (14)
14. Virginia Tech (9)
15. Florida (16)
16. Maryland (NR)

Of the three recruiting seasons discussed here, the '05 rankings were by far the least accurate. Seven of the top ten in Rivals' rankings landed outside the top ten in the final Coaches Poll of 2007. The only three to finish in both top tens were Southern Cal, Oklahoma and Georgia, three of today's most consistently great programs.

You may have noticed that the No. 1 team from 2007, LSU, was no where to be found in Rivals' 2005 recruiting rankings, proving that the two-year theory doesn't always hold true. However, it should be noted that LSU finished 2nd in recruiting in 2004 and 7th in 2006.

'06 Recruiting Rankings ('08 Coaches Poll)
1. Southern Cal (2)
2. Florida (1)
3. Florida State (NR)
4. Georgia (10)
5. Texas (3)
6. Penn State (8)
7. LSU (NR)
8. Notre Dame (NR)
9. Oklahoma (5)
10. Auburn (NR)
11. Alabama (6)
12. Ohio State (11)
13. Michigan (NR)
14. Miami (FL) (NR)
15. Clemson (NR)
16. Ole Miss (15)

In 2008, just over half of the top sixteen in Rivals' 2006 rankings finished in the top sixteen of the 2008 Coaches Poll. And as usual, the powerhouse programs finished about the same in each while the underachievers (Florida State, Notre Dame, Miami (FL) and Clemson) continued to underachieve.

Speaking of underachievers, one of the biggest problems today when ranking recruiting classes is that programs with rich histories often get preferential treatment.

For example: Florida State finished 3rd, 2nd and 3rd, respectively, from '04-'06 in Rivals' recruiting rankings. They then went on to finish outside the top sixteen in the Coaches Poll from '06-'08. Are the Seminoles' recruiting classes put on a pedestal because of their name/reputation? Or is the FSU coaching staff not doing a good enough job? Maybe there are other factors involved.

Sometimes the inaccuracy of recruiting rankings is due to the system that a college program runs. For instance: If a school signs a quarterback that doesn't fit their offense, the "experts" will consider this a huge signing. That signing could then drastically (not to mention mistakenly) shake up recruiting rankings.

Geography may also play a role in the overhype of some prospects and the recruiting classes with which they sign. Of the 2009 Rivals 100 (the top 100 prospects according to the recruiting giant), a combined forty-one percent hailed from three states: Florida (18), Texas (12) and California (11).

Do those states produce that much more talent than, say, Indiana, New Jersey or Washington? Any recruiting "guru" will tell you that these three states -- in terms of the high school talent they produce -- are highly underrated.

But sure enough, none of the three had a player in the 2009 Rivals 100. I understand that scouts can't evaluate every HS prospect in every corner of the nation, but geographical biases can convey misleading reports.

I've followed college football recruiting closely for a handful of years. I've seen five-star prospects turn into busts and I've seen three-star prospects turn into All-Americans. So it's clear that college programs don't always know what they're getting.

But despite the unpredictable rankings, I'll continue to follow the recruiting process each year. It's good to be informed. I'll just be sure to proceed with caution.