I saw a graph floating around on social media this week that listed a 10 year history of the number of 4 and 5 stars signed by each SEC schools and their SEC win/loss record over the same period.
We were like 7th or 8th in recruiting ranking and about the same with 4 or 5 winning SEC records over the same period.
What jumped out to me is that we had 9 five stars that bumped us up on the recruiting side, but we were much lower than several below us on the 4 stars. Those teams had the same success rate, but loaded up on 4 stars instead of 5 stars. Granted ours is also skewed by the 14 and 15 seasons.
So my question: Which has the most bang for the buck? 4 stars or 5 stars. Would we be much better off funneling NIL money to dramatically increase the number of 4 Stars spread around on all positions with our NIL money or spending it on a few 5 stars at key positions. I would think we have a higher chance of convincing 4 stars to come than 5 stars that are going to go to Bama and GA. My thought is chase the 4 stars by over bidding on them and leave the 5 stars and their high cost alone.
We were like 7th or 8th in recruiting ranking and about the same with 4 or 5 winning SEC records over the same period.
What jumped out to me is that we had 9 five stars that bumped us up on the recruiting side, but we were much lower than several below us on the 4 stars. Those teams had the same success rate, but loaded up on 4 stars instead of 5 stars. Granted ours is also skewed by the 14 and 15 seasons.
So my question: Which has the most bang for the buck? 4 stars or 5 stars. Would we be much better off funneling NIL money to dramatically increase the number of 4 Stars spread around on all positions with our NIL money or spending it on a few 5 stars at key positions. I would think we have a higher chance of convincing 4 stars to come than 5 stars that are going to go to Bama and GA. My thought is chase the 4 stars by over bidding on them and leave the 5 stars and their high cost alone.
Last edited:
