UM vs Bama 2 Deep Chart

Submitted by Pdeaner on August 30th, 2012 at 2:15 AM

 I keep hearing how Alabama has more talent due to their amazing recruiting.  So I wanted to take a look and see what the differences were according to Rivals and ESPN.  Hope I didn't mess up the formatting I have never done this before. 

Also note I only included the players that were listed on the Two Deep depth charts.  So the ratings don't include the whole recruiting classes.  I was really suprised to see how many upper classman3 star guys Bama had on the OL and DL.  Most of their highly rated guys were at LB, CB/S, and RB.  I don't think there is as big a differnce as people think.

  Avg Rivals Stars Avg Rivals Rating
POS Bama UM Bama UM
OFFENSE 3.8 3.6 5.9 5.7
OL 3.6 3.7 5.8 5.7
QB 3.5 4 5.8 5.9
RB 4.5 3.5 6 5.8
TE 3.6 3.3 5.8 5.7
WR 4 3.6 5.9 5.8
DEFENSE 4 3.7 5.9 5.7
DL 3.7 3.9 5.8 5.8
LB 4 3.7 5.9 5.7
Secondary 4.1 3.5 5.9 5.7
Total 3.9 3.7 5.9 5.7


  Players in Rivals 250 Avg Rivals Pos Rank
Pos Bama UM Bama UM
OFFENSE 16 12 14 31
OL 4 5 15 36
QB 1 2 14 8
RB 3 2 5 28
TE 3 1 17 24
WR 5 2 16 41
DEFENSE 14 9 20 37
DL 1 5 32 29
LB 8 3 7 35
Secondary 5 1 24 46
Total 30 21 17 34


  Avg ESPN Rank Avg ESPN Pos Rank Players in ESPN 150
Pos Bama UM Bama UM Bama UM
OFFENSE 80 77 23 52 7 5
OL 80 76 23 50 2 2
QB 80 81 22 6 0 2
RB 80 78 24 49 2 0
TE 78 77 18 22 0 1
WR 80 77 25 100 3 0
DEFENSE 81 78 16 44 11 3
DL 79 78 28 39 1 2
LB 81 79 7 32 5 1
Secondary 81 76 16 59 5 0
Total 80 77 20 48 18 8

Sorry about the formatting I have tried to fix it but every time I save it goes back to the large verson. [ed-S: fixed. Thanks for doing the research]



August 30th, 2012 at 2:19 AM ^

Break the charts up into smaller charts by service. Also, writing your thoughts between each or making observations between charts would make this a great diary.

Nice work.


August 30th, 2012 at 2:36 AM ^

... which I think only the last column really alludes to is numbers.  How many players did they recruit in that time.  Even with all the recruiting services, predicting success at the next level is not a perfect science, so increasing the instances (in this case number of recruits), really allows you to reduce the variability.  


You add this on top and you get Alabama with higher average ratings and much higher class size.  That's a tough combination to compete against.  


August 30th, 2012 at 8:16 AM ^

underperformers, a scholarship to Alabama is really just an invitation to try out over the summer.  Those that perform get to stay, those that aren't as advertized are rooted out to make room for others.  Under this system, recruiting rankings do not really tell the story, so while I admire the effort the OP put in, I don't think  there is much takeaway.

They have removed/mitigated the element of chance.  Everyone gets rich and fans are happy, so what's the problem.

Now I know that the SEC has now put some limit (28?) on oversigning, but the machine has been built, and its success is a porch light that attracts more consistant talent like moths to the flame. 



August 30th, 2012 at 10:01 AM ^

To add some to this point, going back to 2002, the average class size for Michigan is 22 and the average class size for Alabama is 26. In that span, the maximum for Michigan was 27 and the minimum was 17. The maximum for Alabama was 32 and the minimum was 19. As the OP's chart sort of depicts, having four more people in the class on average makes a significant difference in average rankings / stars, but the top-heavy distribution of Alabama's class is part of that. I imagine if you created a histogram just with stars for individual recruits, Alabama's distribution would be a little more skewed than Michigan's, but then in the 2002-2012 timeframe that I was looking at, Alabama's sample would have 41 more players in it.


August 30th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^

Bama fan here without flames or trolling:

The number of LOI's Alabama has given out is not the number of scollies given out, and this is due to signing-and-placing non-qualifiers hoping they'll return, kids choosing baseball, and simple non-academic qualifiers who we had hoped would be able to make the grades but did not.  You guys think that difference is because kids are being pushed out - no.  The kids never make it to campus.  I desperately wish that I could get you guys to understand that LOI's have nothing to do with scholly numbers, given the myriad of things a kid can do after his signs his LOI.  There is no evidence that Saban has ever pushed a kid out, and to continue along this line of logic by completely misinterpreting the numbers game is simply illogical.

For example, we gave out 32 LOI's in 2008, Saban's first full year of recruiting.  2 kids played baseball and have never returned, I believe 3 were sign-and-place, I think we had another 1 or so simply not qualify.  The number of kids who set foot on campus was about 25-27, and a few back-counted to the previous year.  We had schollies available for every single kid and didn't push a single player out.  I know that Mich does things differently, and the number of LOI's you give out is the number of kids you bring in.  But given the state of high school academics in the areas we recruit, this is not the way it's done in the South.  The number of LOI's given out is never the number of kids who are coming to campus, and it's known long before NSD.

Each and every year since then, you need to subtract about 2 from the number you see on Rivals or Scout for Alabama's incoming class size, cause those kids will not be on campus that year, and the coaching staff and HS athlete both had known that for months.

It's simply a much different recruiting situation in the South.  No one is being pushed out at Bama.  Your explanantion isn't reality.  What I've wriiten above is.  Please understand that I'm not flaming nor trolling, but rather trying to help you guys understand the situation.  It's much different in the South because of the HS academic situation.


August 30th, 2012 at 8:54 AM ^

Did you account for oversigning?  A 3-Star Bama guy has to earn his roster spot despite being offered a scholarship so maybe there is an extra bump for the Bama guys. 


August 30th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^

You have to take these things in context. Talent rating is just one ingredient. Another, and far more importnat IMO, is development. They will play a lot more upper classmen that have been in a great program. As it was alluded to, our true freshmen in the two deep increase our rating significantly in spots. They don't have the growth and development Bama does. You also have to account for system players playing out of their optimal system and yes, we do have those guys. That's probably worth something. It's a nice piece and it's very interesting, but there needs to be context on an individual basis. 


August 30th, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^

As others have mentioned I'd like to see (or have the time to do myself) a similar break down foucsing on the remnants from the recrutiing classes of 2008-2010 (exclude freshman  and RS freshman). By focusing on what is still on the roster, you get rid of irrelevent information.


August 30th, 2012 at 1:54 PM ^

for her/his work here. Those responding are demonstrating the limitations of such a comparison, but it's still encouraging and worthy. 

Also don't know why Prevatt's response about how the mechanics of AL oversigning gets shut down--we all ought to be big enough to give a thoughtful response like his consideration. I'd be willing to bet the truth lies somewhere between Brian's take and Prevatt's, but the fact that AL recruits are likely to be far dodgier scholastic propositions from far rocker HS backgrounds undoubtedly does play a role in how many show up. Don't know what role fairness plays ultimately in such a scenario but would love to hear other opinions.