Ags come in at #8


We play 9 of the top 25


https://247sports.com/season/2025-football/collegeteamtalentcomposite/




[url=https://postimg.cc/BtfwDycN][/url]

[url=https://postimg.cc/vD72vz0y][/url]


[url=https://postimg.cc/K1W0Ys8P][/url]



[url=https://postimg.cc/w1jrMmcp][/url]

[url=https://postimg.cc/CzcgcYcw][/url]

[url=https://postimg.cc/75tW2ZmT][/url]

[url=https://postimg.cc/hzTy6bg9][/url]

Where's UTSA?

4 said:

---

Where's UTSA?

---

#65, between Illinois and U of H

Wow. That's a pretty big disparity. 8 vs 65

I guess that's why we're paying them all that money to come take their whoopin

4 said:

---

Wow. That's a pretty big disparity. 8 vs 65

I guess that's why we're paying them all that money to come take their whoopin

---

They're basically a standard, perhaps bottom middle of the Big10 type program


Michigan and Ohio State will play a slew of such games, in conference

I've always looked at that team composite list ... and invariably the top teams in the country are always high on that list.

List doesn't take into account positional talent and depth ... for example, during the Kevin Somewin years, A&M's accumulated talent list was buoyed by the wide receivers ... later we had more DT depth and talent than anyone in the nation.

It is just a list of rated talent and takes nothing into account as to glaring weaknesses like OL or LB .... or coaching.

While it is a great list to see, and need to be on the list .... being 8th on the list can very well mean being 19th in the nation.

But we are 5th in "avg star rating" !! - behind Bama, tu, Ohio St and Georgia.

Tied for 6th with Oregon, OU and Miami in number of 5-star players - with 5. Bama, tu, Ohio St and Georgia all have double digit 5-stars.

Only 3 opps not in the top 25:
UTSA - 65, Utah St - 115, Samford - NR

UTSA actually has one 5-star player. John Emory (RB) - transfer from LSU

Just curious - are the star ratings what the player was coming out of HS, or is it adjusted based on what they've developed into as a college player?

I think I found the answer - that is rating coming out of HS. Emory was ranked 11th nationally out of HS in 2019 (#1 RB), but was rated 1318 (#95 RB) as a transfer earlier this year.

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

PeekingDuck said:

---

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

---

Tiny talent gap compared to what it use to look like pre portal



Today gap between #1 and us at #8 is 79 points

In 2015

55 point difference between #1 & #2

74 point difference between #1 and #3

PeekingDuck said:

---

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

---

I don't think it's that big

tu has a lot more 5 stars than us (14-5) but we actually have more blue chips overall (4&5 star combined) 61-58

At a guess, we've been at or near the top 10 for most of the past 5-10 years. How many top 10 finishes do we have during that time period? Pretty sure the answer is 1.

It has to be our turn soon......right!?!

jr15aggie said:

---

At a guess, we've been at or near the top 10 for most of the past 5-10 years. How many top 10 finishes do we have during that time period? Pretty sure the answer is 1.

It has to be our turn soon......right!?!

---

I think the big key, other than top 10 talent is experienced talent which this list doesn't appear to consider. A bunch of 5 star true freshman are almost worthless as true freshman. Then its depth and how its spread out, where the holes are across the board


From there its a game of battleship. Dont take multiple hits across any position group or anywhere the depth is thin to begin with.

IMO this list would be more meaningful if they just subtracted the true fish class

jr15aggie said:

---

At a guess, we've been at or near the top 10 for most of the past 5-10 years. How many top 10 finishes do we have during that time period? Pretty sure the answer is 1.

---

The problem is although we're top 10 in the country we are only 5th in the SEC. As long as we are being out recruited by Bama, Georgia, tu, and LSU we won't sniff a SEC title.

PeekingDuck said:

---

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

---

The gap between us an Bama (7 spots) is the same as us and USCe (10 spots)

It's not massive.

NoahAg said:

---

jr15aggie said:

---

At a guess, we've been at or near the top 10 for most of the past 5-10 years. How many top 10 finishes do we have during that time period? Pretty sure the answer is 1.

---

The problem is although we're top 10 in the country we are only 5th in the SEC. As long as we are being out recruited by Bama, Georgia, tu, and LSU we won't sniff a SEC title.

---

Well, back to the Big XII I guess. We'll go undefeated every year!!! It's not like Texas Tech or Baylor use to kick our ass all those years ago!

vander54 said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

---

The gap between us an Bama (7 spots) is the same as us and USCe (10 spots)

It's not massive.

---

The 5 star disparity is everything. There's a bunch of teams with the same 4 star talent. The differentiator is always the elite guys that break a game open. Especially at WR and RB.

with talent becoming more evenly dispersed coaching will play a bigger role in success moving forward. that and a generational player that can carry a team.

PeekingDuck said:

---

vander54 said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

---

The gap between us an Bama (7 spots) is the same as us and USCe (10 spots)

It's not massive.

---

The 5 star disparity is everything. There's a bunch of teams with the same 4 star talent. The differentiator is always the elite guys that break a game open. Especially at WR and RB.

---

Disagree about 5 stars. Is there really a huge dofference between the top 4 stars and most of the 5 stars?

Now if most your 4 stars are 300ish in rankings then there is a big difference but aside from the top few 5 stars there really is not a huge difference between a 5 star and a top 100 player.

vander54 said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

vander54 said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

---

The gap between us an Bama (7 spots) is the same as us and USCe (10 spots)

It's not massive.

---

The 5 star disparity is everything. There's a bunch of teams with the same 4 star talent. The differentiator is always the elite guys that break a game open. Especially at WR and RB.

---

Disagree about 5 stars. Is there really a huge dofference between the top 4 stars and most of the 5 stars?

Now if most your 4 stars are 300ish in rankings then there is a big difference but aside from the top few 5 stars there really is not a huge difference between a 5 star and a top 100 player.

---

Yes there is a huge difference. Look at the top 10 rated college football players from any source and I'll bet most or all were 5 star recruits.

Question: This composite is the people currently on the team? Not just a combining of the last four recruiting classes?

JournoAG said:

---

Question: This composite is the people currently on the team? Not just a combining of the last four recruiting classes?

---

Yes, it includes the portal and all that

I really don't think that's true. And you can see it even more clearly at the professional level. That little bit extra is the difference in elite contests, whatever you're doing. Maybe it isn't always true, but that combined with the depth and age of 5 stars (really two sides of the same coin with volume of 5 stars) makes the difference. I can't recall a team that won it all without that discrepancy.

vander54 said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

vander54 said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Enormous talent gap between the top 4 and everyone else. Tough to overcome.

---

The gap between us an Bama (7 spots) is the same as us and USCe (10 spots)

It's not massive.

---

The 5 star disparity is everything. There's a bunch of teams with the same 4 star talent. The differentiator is always the elite guys that break a game open. Especially at WR and RB.

---

Disagree about 5 stars. Is there really a huge dofference between the top 4 stars and most of the 5 stars?

Now if most your 4 stars are 300ish in rankings then there is a big difference but aside from the top few 5 stars there really is not a huge difference between a 5 star and a top 100 player.

---

I agree, the 5 star concept is forced, 32 per year is not somw qualitative number that just happens to end up at 32 each year.


IMO they should make it mean something, make it qualitative instead of a predetermined target.


Maybe 70 per year, plus or minus 10 makes more sense

I am not surprised that Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and LSU are ranked ahead of us in team talent composite. Hopefully, we can win all 9 games we should be favored to win and steal one of the road games against Notre Dame, LSU, and Texas to make the playoffs.

I was expecting to see tt in the top 25

You're better off analyzing NFL Draft pick production and how that showed itself in the season immediately prior.

Interesting, I think the disparity between us and the top four teams do show that 5 star players can make a big difference. I thought last years team was pretty solid but we lacked any real playmakers unless you count Moss. We had 4 star talent across the board but no one to really take over a game (apart from the d-line which for several reasons didn't meet the expectations many of us wanted to see).

Not to rehash old nightmares, but consider the 5 star players which have decomitted from us over the past 4 years:
Harold Perkins
Anthony Hill
Cam Coleman
Dominic Mckinley
Husan Longstreet

bama had 9 more 5 stars then us. Take the 5 players above and add 4 more random 5 stars to our roster and tell me we wouldn't be a much better team.

The good news is that at #8, we should be able to win games by just leaning on any team that is not in the OP.

The bad news is that we only have three opponents on our schedule that are not in the OP.


The talent ratio is like the blue chip ratio. You have to be highly ranked to have a shot at winning it all, but just because you are highly ranked doesn't mean you have a shot at winning it all. It is much more useful as a tool to figure out where you stack against you competition. In our case, behind two of the teams we play, and just barely ahead of a team we play on the road. Basically, our three toughest games we have the disadvantage in, and almost all of our other conference games we should have an advantage, but not enough of one to just lean on the opponent to get the win. Which is exactly what we have been talking about all off-season.

1) I've long said the star ranking system is a crock, there are too many "4 star prospects"
2) your high end top 100 types are what separates the contenders from the pretenders

The composition isn't truly who is going to be playing. How many QB's are in the 5 star group for a team. Bama has 2, so only 1 is playing. They have 4 DB's that are 5 star. Could they all play? Theoretically, yes. 2 are freshman and 1 is a sophomore. One of the 5 stars is a Oline. For a team that is typically stacked, it is rare a 5 star oline will play meaningful minutes. Yes it happens, but it will take a year or 2 for the strength aspect to be a factor typically.

Georgia has 4-5 star LB's. Fish, 2 soph, 1 jr. They are not all playing at the same time likely specially since there are several high 4 star guys that are upperclassmen.

I take this list more of a barometer of how well you are recruiting according to the recruiting rankings. Do you want to be high on this list? Absolutely, but isn't the be all for a successful season. How well is the team playing together, injuries, lucky bounces, etc all play a part.

2024 Composite list and their finish (hopefully format posts ok):

# on left is composite ranking, # on right is AP finish.
1 - Bama 17
2 - Georgia 6
3 - Ohio St 1
4 - tu 4
5 - Clemson 14
6 - Oregon 3
7 - OU Unranked
8 - LSU Unranked
9 - ND 2
10 - A&M Unranked
11 - Penn St 5

Stonegateag85 said:

---

1) I've long said the star ranking system is a crock, there are too many "4 star prospects"
2) your high end top 100 types are what separates the contenders from the pretenders

---

It would be cool if some statistician would back test say the last 10 years of data using the 247 composite vs college peformance and find where the logical cutoffs are


Maybe it turns out there's no significant statical difference among the top 70ish as 5 stars, and perhaps there's more like 178 4 stars, and 115 3 stars that actually contribute in college at some percentage likelihood


The odds that top 100, top 32 5 stars, top 300 or any of the arbitrary rankings have qctual meaning is basically 0

So what would the statistically relevant cutoff be on average?


Personally id rather they do a qualitative rankings on an individual basis, and bucket players where they belong but Im sure thats a lot more difficult

Ugly said:

---

The good news is that at #8, we should be able to win games by just leaning on any team that is not in the OP.

The bad news is that we only have three opponents on our schedule that are not in the OP.


The talent ratio is like the blue chip ratio. You have to be highly ranked to have a shot at winning it all, but just because you are highly ranked doesn't mean you have a shot at winning it all. It is much more useful as a tool to figure out where you stack against you competition. In our case, behind two of the teams we play, and just barely ahead of a team we play on the road. Basically, our three toughest games we have the disadvantage in, and almost all of our other conference games we should have an advantage, but not enough of one to just lean on the opponent to get the win. Which is exactly what we have been talking about all off-season.

---

High talent rankings are not a guarantee of success, but you do still need it if you want even a shot at a Natty. We were 4th for two straight years and went 12 and 13. Unfortunately, many of those 5 and 4 star players in that 2022 class, with the exception of a few players, turned out to be duds. Now, we can blame Jimbo, the lack of discipline, not developing the players, not being able to keep the QBs protected, etcetera. Hopefully, Elko with NIL/Transfer Portal can keep up a high level of recruiting, and evaluate/develop those players so we can exceed expectations.

I don't see the value in summing up the recruiting ratings of players across multiple years. Sure, it's more directionally correct than randomly generating team rankings, but it's hard to see how relevant a 2022 (or even 2023 & 2024) recruiting ranking is for a player today. There's so much change from year to year.

I would think with as much data and analysis as there is out there, someone would have come up with a more real-time system of rating players based on current/recent performance. I'm sure someone will develop that at some point.

Gigemags382 said:

---

I don't see the value in summing up the recruiting ratings of players across multiple years. Sure, it's more directionally correct than randomly generating team rankings, but it's hard to see how relevant a 2022 (or even 2023 & 2024) recruiting ranking is for a player today. There's so much change from year to year.

I would think with as much data and analysis as there is out there, someone would have come up with a more real-time system of rating players based on current/recent performance. I'm sure someone will develop that at some point.

---

That wont ever happen imo. Guru rankings aren't exactly done by analysis. Their starting point is which teams are recruiting which players and how hard are they recruiting them. Its just a survey of who's recruiting who.

Often, lost in the shuffle is why, so you get kids ranked a lot higher even though programs know they're unlikely to be a player, but due to superior athleticism they take the risk. If the light comes on, watch out. Thats just an example. Point being guru rankings are not quantitative, they're more qualitative. For for that reason, anything that can big picture bucket players more accurately than a sales technique like top 100, or 5 star is an improvement

Ugly said:

---

Basically, our three toughest games we have the disadvantage in

---

Isn't that why they are the toughest games?