I've been keeping an eye on the ESPN top 150 recruits and have wondered what factors does it take to become a top 5-10 recruiting school?
I notice that Florida State is a top recruiting school the past couple of years although they have not been a Champion contender.

Oklahoma State has been getting better every year for the past couple years and is now ranked #3, what will it take for them to become a top recruiting school?

I have no idea. Texas A&M is ranked ahead of OU in the 2011 recruiting class and they both have the same amount of ESPN Top 150 commits (4) but OU has less overall commits (14 to TAMU's 24) and in the typical human mind I would say OU has a better recruiting class because they have just as many Top 150 commits as A&M but have 10 less overall commits than A&M. It's confusing so I'm not even going to begin to speculate but I'm sure someone on here with a better grasp can explain as I'm not very sure.

But like stated by Nike, Oklahoma State is the Oregon of the Midwest with all the uniforms and the style of play so even if they have a down year, say 9-4, they will still get very good commits just because of their reputation, which is a very good one.

The key to recruiting is consistency. Some highly rated classes will bust and some will overachieve, but to be a top flight program you have to consistently get good classes. This isn't scientific, but here are the factors that I would think are important:

1. Tradition (winning begets winning... programs with titles can often continue to pull in top classes even when they are down; Winning also begets $$$ - programs with more tradition have more donors and season ticket holders)
2. Current State/Success of the Program
3. Coaches
4. Facilities
5. Location (Are you in close priximity to lots of recruits? Do they want to live where your schools is?)
6. Miscellaneous factors

I'm sure I'm leaving some factors out...

OSU has really improved on 2, 3, and 4 and that's why they're getting better recruits. #1 is the main reason why OSU has trouble bringing in, and will continue to have trouble bringing in, the level of classes that OU has brought in. That doesn't mean OSU can't compete though.

Finally, it's important to remember that getting the top recruits every year doesn't mean anything (see Texas 2010-2011), but can also mean something (see Texas 2005, 2009). There are a lot of factors to have a successful program in the long term.

Recruiting services rank classes based on essetially adding up the total stars. Since recruiting classes differ in size, the best way to assess the quality of a recruiting class is based on average stars of a player.

Having said that, recruiting is a very inexact science with bias all over. A player might be considered a 2 star recruit and then OU and Texas offer him and he'll be a 4 star by the next day...

Being able to fly underneath the NCAA's rules radar helps. People don't want to talk about the shadier side of it, but I wouldn't doubt that most of the top programs do things that'd make the NCAA come down on him that just aren't reported.

Beyond that, tradition and TV exposure really helps.

People don't want to talk about the shadier side of it, but I wouldn't doubt that most of the top programs do things that'd make the NCAA come down on him that just aren't reported.

Beyond that, tradition and TV exposure really helps.

Hawk, I disagree. It's been obvious this year, especially, that the big boy schools are getting no favors from the NCAA about violations. It is being talked about and investigated more than any time I can remember in the past.

Hawk, I disagree. It's been obvious this year, especially, that the big boy schools are getting no favors from the NCAA about violations. It is being talked about and investigated more than any time I can remember in the past.

I'm even a little surprised OU hasn't popped up as "under investigation" as it seems all big time football programs are. Just my observation.

I'm even a little surprised OU hasn't popped up as "under investigation" as it seems all big time football programs are. Just my observation.

OU has certainly had their share of "problems" and the basketball program is still having "problems".

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7120347/ncaa-rules-violation-investigation-costs-oklahoma-more-50000

OU has certainly had their share of "problems" and the basketball program is still having "problems".

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7120347/ncaa-rules-violation-investigation-costs-oklahoma-more-50000

Oh, definately, but I meant of recent year, as in the past 5 years.

Oh, definately, but I meant of recent year, as in the past 5 years.

MDot, as strange as it may seem, it's possible there hasn't been any reason for "under investigation" to come up in the OU football program since the Rhett Bomar issues. When you're dealing with about 100 teenagers nothing is for sure though. You should know since you are one. LOL

MDot, as strange as it may seem, it's possible there hasn't been any reason for "under investigation" to come up in the OU football program since the Rhett Bomar issues. When you're dealing with about 100 teenagers nothing is for sure though. You should know since you are one. LOL

If OU is anywhere near clean since Rhett Bomar then I applaud them for their willingness to even attempt to abide by the rules; that or cover up their wrong doings with such professionalism, either way it takes some BIG balls to do one or the other.

Thanks for the answers,
I thinks it is amazing that lsu has only been in the top 5 like once in the last decade but they are consistant performers...

Thanks for the answers,
I thinks it is amazing that lsu has only been in the top 5 like once in the last decade but they are consistant performers...

I didn't realize that. They always have a stream of talent, such as the Honey Badger, and don't get any love? Kilgoure was right about the biasm...

Thanks for the answers,
I thinks it is amazing that lsu has only been in the top 5 like once in the last decade but they are consistant performers...

Uh, where do you get your information?!? LSU has been one of the top recruiting programs over the last decade. They finish in the top 10 almost every year and have finished in the top 3 several times.

Uh, where do you get your information?!? LSU has been one of the top recruiting programs over the last decade. They finish in the top 10 almost every year and have finished in the top 3 several times.

He got his information from Jim Traber, the OSU apologist... Sorry, I had too.

Uh, where do you get your information?!? LSU has been one of the top recruiting programs over the last decade. They finish in the top 10 almost every year and have finished in the top 3 several times.

Sorry Im not very intune with the recruiting world so checked got my info from ESPN (which only goes back to 2006).
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-football/recruiting/classrankings?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fcol lege-football%2frecruiting%2fclassrankings
If u have a better reference I would to know.

So, according to ESPN LSU finished:
2011: 10
2010: 8
2009: 1
2008: 11
2007: 6
2006: 8

That's really, really good. You'll only find a handful of programs with classes consistently that high. No classes below 11 in the last 6 years! You also have to remember that if you're bringing in a small class (class sizes vary from year-to-year), it's difficult to maintain a high ranking. Rivals rates their classes even higher. LSU is definitely one of the top 5 recruiting powers right now along with Texas, Alabama, USC, and Florida State. Compare OU's classes to LSU's and it's a blowout.

Hawk, I disagree. It's been obvious this year, especially, that the big boy schools are getting no favors from the NCAA about violations. It is being talked about and investigated more than any time I can remember in the past.

That's assuming that the NCAA even knows about everything that goes on though. The big violations come because someone outs a school (a few tattooists at Ohio State, a rival school against Auburn), but I don't believe that the schools getting outed are the only ones with their hands dirty.

As for not doing them any favors, the whole resolution to the Auburn debacle makes it hard for me to believe that as well. They'll pull the trigger on a school if it gets out, but the caliber of bullet lately seems to depend on the prospects of the school and it's ability to make money.

I'm not saying every school is participating in SMU level payola scandals, but I think if you got down to the nitty-gritty, they'd all be doing some... let's call it creative interpretation of the rules.

That's assuming that the NCAA even knows about everything that goes on though. The big violations come because someone outs a school (a few tattooists at Ohio State, a rival school against Auburn), but I don't believe that the schools getting outed are the only ones with their hands dirty.

As for not doing them any favors, the whole resolution to the Auburn debacle makes it hard for me to believe that as well. They'll pull the trigger on a school if it gets out, but the caliber of bullet lately seems to depend on the prospects of the school and it's ability to make money.

I'm not saying every school is participating in SMU level payola scandals, but I think if you got down to the nitty-gritty, they'd all be doing some... let's call it creative interpretation of the rules.

That's not assuming anything. You were suggesting that the "big boys" were getting a pass when, in fact, there have been some very high profile "big boy" schools investigated and punished in the last few years. I'm not saying that the NCAA is always perfect or fair, just that I don't see any reluctance to go after the "big boy" schools when they can prove violations.

That's not assuming anything. You were suggesting that the "big boys" were getting a pass when, in fact, there have been some very high profile "big boy" schools investigated and punished in the last few years. I'm not saying that the NCAA is always perfect or fair, just that I don't see any reluctance to go after the "big boy" schools when they can prove violations.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the NCAA was ignoring the major programs when news got out of their violations, I'm saying I think the schools are doing things that aren't getting out that give them an advantage. I don't think Rhett Bomar or Reggie Bush type situations were the only examples of those types of things, but the majority of situations that would be rules violations just don't go beyond the parties involved. Boosters with thick pockets help out the big schools, I think.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the NCAA was ignoring the major programs when news got out of their violations, I'm saying I think the schools are doing things that aren't getting out that give them an advantage. I don't think Rhett Bomar or Reggie Bush type situations were the only examples of those types of things, but the majority of situations that would be rules violations just don't go beyond the parties involved. Boosters with thick pockets help out the big schools, I think.

There is little doubt that questionable things happen at every school. The major issue is whether or not those at the school are complicit in those things or exhibit a "lack of institutional control". I think the instances of employees of the schools being involved are not that common even if it does occur.