Random Practice Notes

As of early Monday morning, the Crimson Tide has completed their third practice. And the third, i.e. the one that preceded Fan Day, was open to the public. At this point, we've found out a few things here and there that we can safely say, one way or the other, about developments thus far in practice. Here goes:

• Players, as a whole, seem to be in much better shape. Noticeably gone are the big bellies that we have seen the past few years. The apocryphal "Puddin' ass" and his cohorts in crime have apparently discovered, or perhaps I should say forced to discover, our world-class weight room facilities.
  

• The defensive line is big, no two ways about it. Again, "Puddin' ass"... The thing is, even the defensive ends are huge, which is largely to be expected in the 3-4. Generally speaking, even the defensive ends now are mostly between 270 and 285 pounds. The defensive ends in 2007 will essentially be as big as the defensive tackles that we have had the past several years. And, not to be outdone, the defensive tackles are quite large as well, with both Chapman and McCullough reporting around 300 pounds each.
  

• Prince Hall is not in the Saban doghouse. Some people concluded as such after Hall spent the first practice with the freshmen, but that's not the case. Apparently the staff is trying to get the young defenders (who, of course, we will need this season) acclimated to the environment and the college game.
  

• Speaking of Hall, at the open practice, he was barking out orders to the defense. With little doubt, he seems to be the field general of the defense.
  

• More on Hall, he's in much better shape this year. As well as he played last year, the truth was that he was a bit overweight and out-of-shape. Not anymore. He's dropped a good bit of weight and noticeably has the best physique since he has arrived at the Capstone.
  

• Rolando McClain showed up as a beast, as expected. He has been shadowing Prince Hall, from all we can tell, and that's not too surprising. I believe, judging by the totality of the circumstances, that the coaching staff realizes that, if at all possible from a mental perspective, McClain needs to start this year, as soon as possible. I imagine that tutoring McClain may have been the main reason Prince Hall was with the freshmen on the first day.
  

• Roy Upchurch missed the first practice, but he showed up today. However, he was wearing a black jersey signifying no contact. Then again, on the other hand, he was taking reps with the first-team offense. I imagine the only people who really know what is going on here is the players and the coaches, seems odd to say the least.
  

• Chris Capps does not appear to be close to any meaningful playing time. Obviously, among other things, the shoulder surgery that caused him to miss Spring practice and much of the off-season workout program have hurt him greatly. He has taken some reps at left tackle, backing up Andre of course, and has also taken some reps at right tackle. However, it seems that he is noticeably behind both Mike Johnson and B.J. Stabler (a much leaner B.J. Stabler, I might add). Given how the coaching staff is flipping him around, I cannot help but wonder if they are trying to mold Capps into a multi-dimensional reserve player who could play a variety of positions if, or I should say when, one of the starters gets hurt. Starting doesn't seem to be in his future, either way.
  

• Jimmy Johns is taken a high number of snaps at fullback. No, rumors of him being 250 pounds were incorrect, but nevertheless he is still taking reps as a fullback. I really do not know about this one, honestly. He was with the first-team offense during Spring practice, and you would assume he would be there again, but apparently not. Of course, this may be just Saban experimenting like the mad scientist that he is renowned for being on the practice field. And no one really knows if Johns is being used as a true fullback or more of a hybrid H-back. Again, lots of questions here, few definite answers.
  

• Glen Coffee has dropped a good bit of weight, it seems. I don't know if the 28 pound figure at RollTide.com is correct, but it is obvious just from plain-sight that he is considerably leaner. That's huge news, to be quite reserved about the situation. A tailback at 225 pounds is a completely different player than a tailback at 197 pounds. It's two completely different running styles, etc. Again, much like with Johns, lots of questions here, few definite answers.
  

• John Parker Wilson impressed several today at Fan Day, and many noted his seemingly improved arm strength. We'll see with the first scrimmage on that one, though there is little doubt that a rigorous workout program and improved mechanics (which probably wasn't a major problem with Wilson, but nevertheless) can improve overall arm strength.
  

• Marquis Maze is impressing everyone in the return game. He's not ready to play on offense, but he is wowing people when he gets the ball in the open field on returns. Considering Arenas and Grant are already considered good returners, I'm not sure he will play this year, but it's good news nonetheless.
  

• Though it shouldn't come as much of a surprise, the defense does seem much more complicated than in the past. Kines never had complex schemes; the underlying philosophy to the Kines' scheme in that sense was that we are going to be pretty simple, but we are going to be very good at those few things that we do. Saban is the exact opposite. Even going back to his time as defensive coordinator of the Cleveland Browns in the mid-1990's, Saban has been known for his extremely complex defensive packages, and that seems no different at Alabama. Unlike in the past, our guys will have to really keep their head in the playbook. No more simpleton stuff with the Nicktator around.
  

• Lorenzo Washington has gotten noticeably bigger. He still has a ways to go, but for the first time he is seemingly making progress. He is in the mid-280's now, and it shows. He has bounced back and forth, seeing some time at tackle and some at end. Hopefully he's beginning to fulfill his promise.
  

• Nikita Stover was hurt today, going out with an apparent knee / hip injury. He got tangled up going for a jump ball in double coverage, and I assume landed awkwardly. Nothing has been said of it thus far, so hopefully the silence is good news, especially considering how quickly the Demetrius Goode news came out.
  

And, well, that's about it. As expected, there are probably a lot more questions marks than answers, but again, that's expected. Thankfully, we should find out more in the coming days, and the first scrimmage will answer many of our questions. Either way, Fall practice seems to be off to a good start for the Crimson Tide.

Recruiting: Four and Five Stars

In an earlier post, I tried to determine whether or not recruiting rankings mattered in terms of future team performance. One of the many conclusions of that post was that approximately 80 per cent of Alabama's roster (not the total roster, but only those on scholarship)the past few years has been comprised of players rated as three-star or lower by the recruiting services. Long story short, the argument was that number was / is entirely too low.

So, I decided to take the same time period (2002-2004) and determine how many four and five star recruits that each SEC team signed over that period.

The following is what I found, listing the number signed by each team per year, and then the total for the three year period:



So, how well did all of that correlate with overall winning percentage in a future time-frame (2004-2006)? Here is that data broken down:



Much like with recruiting rankings, as you can see, where you rank in terms of how many four and five star recruits you sign, compared to the rest of the conference, strongly correlates with overall winning percentage on down the road.

To be specific, the correlation between recruiting rank and winning percentage rank was a robust .7202. That's not quite as strong as the .8 that we saw between overall team recruiting rankings and winning percentage, but it's still very strong.

At bottom, the teams that sign the most four and five star players are generally the ones that do the best on the playing field. Certainly there were a lot of busts included in those numbers, but on the whole the teams that signed the most high-quality players did better than the rest. It didn't correlate quite as high as overall team rankings, I presume, because recruiting isn't just about signing four and five star players (although that's the majority of it), it's also about signing some players that are rated three stars and below and turning them into quality football players as well.

Nevertheless, at bottom, it just further seems to indicate that, regardless of how vehemently some people want to assert otherwise, recruiting rankings do matter.

The SEC East: 24 Questions

We've looked at the SEC West. So now we turn to the SEC East...

Every team has questions marks. And how those question marks are resolved is largely the determining factor in the overall quality and level of success of a football team. So, six SEC East teams, four questions each. Twenty-four questions:

Florida

(1) Despite bringing home the crystal trophy in 2006, Florida wasn't particularly good on the offensive side of the ball. Oh, sure, they weren't bad, but they certainly weren't anything special. Chris Leak is gone, and now Tim Tebow is going to have to be much more than a glorified fullback and the key cog of a bunch of trick plays. The Gators don't really return that many starters on offense, but they are, without doubt, very talented. Can the Florida offense step it up in Meyer's third year and take off in terms of point production, or is another so-so year on the horizon?

(2) The Florida running game has not been particularly good since Meyer arrived in Gainesville. They have talented players, as expected, but that hasn't turned into production. Honestly, Tim Tebow in 2006 was the best running threat the Gators have had to date, and that needs to change. We'll see if Kestahn Moore, Chris Rainey, and others to turn this running game into something special. Will the Florida running game become one of the best in the conference, or will it be another mediocre year for the Meyer backfield in Gainesville?

(3) As said earlier, the Florida offense wasn't particularly good in 2006, and it was without doubt the Florida defense that brought the crystal trophy back to Gainesville. Problem is, the Gators are in for a major rebuilding on the defensive side of the ball, as only two starters return. At bottom, it's very young and inexperienced, though talented. If Florida wants to get anywhere near where they want to go, this defense is going to have to get it together and be productive quickly. Can the Florida defense quickly congeal and be near as productive of a unit as the Gators had in 2006?

(4) Without running the numbers, I imagine the place-kicking for Florida last year was the worst of any national champion in ages. Chris Hetland was only 4-13 overall, and was only 1-10 in kicks of 30 yards or more. Yet, somehow, the place-kicking woes didn't cost the Gators too much in 2006. Hetland is gone now, though, and a new face will be handing the place-kicking duties. Considering the extreme importance of accurate place-kicking in close games, will Florida be able to find a consistently successful place-kicker when it counts in 2007?

Georgia

(1) Matt Stafford returns for year number two, and the Bulldogs will sink or swim with him. He looked terrible part of last year, and then played pretty good football down the stretch. UGA will need him to do the latter if they expect any real success in 2007. Though Stafford is still at least a year or so away from peak performance, he still needs to have a good season in terms of both production and protecting the football. Can Matt Stafford continue to improve on the solid finish to his 2006 season, or will he regress into another Georgia nightmare of incompletions and interceptions?

(2) Aside from Stafford, there are some other uncertainties on the offensive side of the ball. The team's leading receiver from a year ago, Martrez Milner, is gone, and so are both offensive tackles, who were the key cogs to the Dawgs pass protection. The receiving corps, too, is a question mark. It's talented, but has some injury concerns and as a whole has never been particularly consistent. How well will Georgia be able to replace the tight end and the tackles, and will the receiving corps be able to stay healthy and consistently productive?

(3) Surprisingly enough, after we did a thorough analysis off the 2006 SEC pass rushes, Georgia didn't do particularly well. Despite having two of the best rush ends in the country -- Quentin Moses and Charles Johnson -- they finished only fifth in the conference in Adjusted Sacks. Considering both of those players have now moved on to the NFL, there should be legitimate worries over the effectiveness of the Dawgs 2007 pass rush. Will Georgia be able to handle the losses of Moses and Johnson and still effectively rush the passer, or will the Dawgs be giving opposing quarterbacks all day to throw?

(4) Defensive line aside, the Georgia defense as a whole is staring down the barrel of a massive rebuilding job. All told, they only return three starters on defense, and the defensive back seven will be almost wholly new. Considering the UGA pass rush may not be particularly good, will the defensive back seven be able to quickly replace starters from a year ago and form an effective unit?

Kentucky

(1) Despite a lot of firepower at the offensive skill positions, the Wildcat offensive line is a bit of a mess. The left side is perhaps okay, but the center position and the right side of the offensive line is in trouble. There is no depth to the group, and a true freshman (Stuart Hines) is likely to start at right tackle. Will the Kentucky offensive line be good enough to allow all of the of the firepower at the skill positions to take off and rack up a lot of yardage and points?

(2) Despite an overall powerful offense last year, Kentucky wasn't particularly good in the red zone, and had some definite problems. No, they weren't Alabama bad in that sense, but they weren't particularly good either. As Alabama fans saw in 2006, it doesn't really matter how well you move the ball if you stall out inside the 20. Will the Kentucky offense put its 2006 red zone problems aside, or will they continue and be a major roadblock in their quest for back-to-back bowl appearances?

(3) The defensive line is a major problem for the Wildcats. Two projected starters, Josh Minton and Ventrell Jenkins, are unlikely to be able to play this year due to injuries, and overall the unit just lacks depth. Moreover, they get no real help from the incoming recruiting class, where arguably the only player ready to perform at an SEC-caliber level, DJ Stafford, did not qualify academically. Can the Kentucky defense play respectable football, or will they be torn to shreds by quality offensive lines?

(4) Kentucky was one of the worst teams in the conference last year in terms of pass defense, and a variety of metrics here at Outside The Sidelines have confirmed that. Though much of the defensive backfield returns, they have a lot of progress to make. Will the Kentucky secondary be able to produce a semi-effective pass defense, or will opposing teams continue to throw effectively at will?

South Carolina

(1) Blake Mitchell could probably be the textbook example of the usual love / hate relationship that Steve Spurrier has with his quarterbacks. He looked surprisingly good for most of 2005, then flopped in early 2006, which landed him a spot on the bench, and that suddenly rebounded to close the year. If Mitchell plays like he did late in 2006, South Carolina could have a potent offense, but if not, they are likely in big trouble. Much like with Georgia and Matt Stafford, which players shows up in 2007?

(2) Mitchell aside, the major question mark to the Gamecock offense is the offensive line, which includes replacing the center and the two starting guards from a year ago. Though their appears to be plenty of talent at the skill positions, it will all go for not if the Gamecocks lose the battle in the trenches. Will the offensive line be good enough to allow Blake Mitchell and the other skill position players to rack up big yardage and points?

(3) The South Carolina, secondary, without doubt, has a good deal of talent and a good deal of potential. The defensive front seven for the Gamecocks is about as good as you'll find anywhere, and if the secondary can step up and live up to its talent, it could turn this defense into one of the best in the nation. Can the secondary take a step forward and turn this defense into a true shutdown defense?

(4) South Carolina is not without talent, but in terms of depth, they probably still aren't as deep as the big boys of the SEC. Spurrier has done a fine job in recruiting, but it takes time and South Carolina is still not as deep, from top-to-bottom of the depth chart, as are some other SEC teams. And that will be a major problem if injuries arise for the Gamecocks. While they should still be pretty good, if injuries arise you can pretty much cancel out any chance of an appearance in Atlanta. Can South Carolina get the injury luck needed to not have to rely greatly on their depth chart and thus make a push for Atlanta?

Tennessee

(1) Tennessee loses the three leading receivers from their high octane passing attack of 2006, and they will have a lot of young guys with little experience at wide-out this season. Granted, Erik Ainge is a fine quarterback, but the Tennessee passing offense is never going to take off like it did a year ago unless those young receivers can step up and play good football. Can the youthful Tennessee receivers step up and play good football, allowing Ainge to replicate his successes of a year ago, or will inconsistent play at the wide-out position result in a drop-off in the passing attack?

(2) Offensive Coordinator David Cutcliffe is wanting to get back a power running game at Tennessee, and that didn't work in 2006. Despite a lot of talent at tailback, the offensive line wasn't particularly suited for that job, but another year will help their development. Can the Tennessee rushing attack be as powerful as it was on days gone by, or will it be another poor rushing attack for the Vols, who will have to hope that Ainge and company can get it done through the air?

(3) The Tennessee defensive line has a few key replacements to make. However, they do have several very talented and experienced players from which to make those replacements (such as Demonte Bolden, Antonio Reynolds, etc.). The only problem is, none of those guys have ever played that all. To paraphrase an old saying, they look like Tarzan but have played like Jane. Much like a lot of the Tennessee roster the past few years, thus far they have been great players who have never lived up to their potential. Will those defensive linemen finally play up to their potential and create a top-notch defensive line?

(4) The Vol secondary returns Jonathon Hefney, who is a great player. Aside from that, it's a major question mark, and the other three sports are up for grabs. We don't know who will grab them just yet, but whoever it will be will generally be very young and inexperienced plays. Can the young Vol secondary form around Hefney and produce an effective pass defense, or will they struggle in terms of pass defense again in 2007?

Vanderbilt

(1) Chris Nickson surprised most in 2006 with his performance in replacing Jay Cutler. However, Nickson's game did leave a lot to be desired, and he was very inconsistent at times. He had some big games (mainly Florida and Kentucky), but in nine games he failed to throw for more than 150 yards. All told, Nickson has to be consistently better all across the board. Will Nickson's overall performance improve, or will he continue to be the boom and bust quarterback that he was in 2006?

(2) Cassen Jackson-Garrison is a pretty talented running back. He has good size, and is a pretty good runner. Unfortunately, last year the Vanderbilt offense was built solely upon either Chris Nickson passing or running around with the ball. Garrison did well at times, but never really got the ball, as he saw more than 18 carries only once all season. If Vanderbilt is to be effective in 2007, they have to actually develop a running game, and it has to be more than just Chris Nickson. Will Cassen Jackson-Garrison be given the opportunity to create a legitimate running game, or will it be The Chris Nickson Show: Part II?

(3) Earl Bennett had a good year in 2006, but it was very streaky. He had more than three times as many catches as the team's second leading receiver, and more than three times as many yards as well. Problem was, as noted earlier, his production was inconsistent at best. The majority of his production came in four games, and in the other eight games he often times struggled to make an impact. For the Vanderbilt passing game to take off, aside from better play from Nickson, it needs Earl Bennett to become more consistent. Can Earl Bennett consistently put up big numbers in 2007, or will it be the same boom and bust as of 2006?

(4) The Vanderbilt pass defense in 2006 was simply terrible, no two ways about it. It was, with almost no doubt, the worst in the conference. They have some experienced players returning in 2007, but this unit still has to improve by leaps and bounds. Considering the front seven should be pretty good, if this unit can even put together a relatively decent performance, the Vanderbilt defense should be fairly good. Will the Vanderbilt secondary play relatively well and create a solid overall defense, or will atrocious pass defense ruin an otherwise solid defense for the second year in a row?

The SEC West: 24 Questions

Every team has questions marks. And how those question marks are resolved is largely the determining factor in the overall quality and level of success of a football team. So, six SEC West teams, four questions each. Twenty-four questions:

Alabama

(1) The offensive line struggled a year ago, to put it mildly. However, everyone returns, and the old coaching techniques have been ditched. The S&C program is much more difficult under Saban, and the offensive linemen have reported in much better physical condition than a year ago. It's almost a given that the line will improve, but how much? Will they go from poor to mediocre, or will they emerge as one of the best offensive lines in the conference?

(2) The running game last year was quite bad, likely the worst since 1993. Ken Darby is gone, though that is unlikely to be a major loss, and there are several backs who may seize the starting job, including Jimmy Johns, Glen Coffee, Roy Upchurch, Terry Grant, and Demetrius Goode. Which one(s) will step up, and how effective will they be in carrying the running game?

(3) The Crimson Tide defense definitely has some talent, but is generally young and inexperienced. Notably, several true freshman expect to see a good bit of meaningful playing time in conference play, including Rolando McClain (LB), Kareem Jackson (CB), Alfred McCullough (DT), Josh Chapman (DT), and Luther Davis (DE). And some other young players, such as Justin Woodall, will likely start. All told, for better or for worse, the performance of the younger players will go a long way to determining the overall quality of the defense. Exactly how will those players perform, and how will the defense as a whole perform with several young and inexperienced players in the line-up?

(4) In terms of special teams, Alabama was one of the worst teams in the conference last year. We struggled with place-kicking, punting, kick-offs, punt coverage, and kick coverage. There were really no bright spots, for the most part. And with the new rule change on kick-offs, special teams figure to be more important than ever. With a new coaching staff in place, and a new special teams coach (Ron Middleton), how will the special teams perform?

Auburn

(1) The Tigers must rebuild their offensive line for 2007, which is a bit of a concern considering the Auburn offense was mediocre at best in 2006. The Tommy Tuberville offenses are generally built mainly around an effective power running game, and everything else works off that once it has been established. Obviously, power running games only work effectively with good blocking from the big uglies. Will the new starters be able to replicate the success of the Auburn offensive lines from the past three years?

(2) Offensively, at the skill positions, proven talent is very short on the Plains. Courtney Taylor and Kenny Irons are both gone, and there are really no proven skill position players. At tailback, the two leaders are Brad Lester and Ben Tate, but both are unproven. Brad Lester looked okay last year, but racked up most of his yardage against inferior opponents, and was generally a moderately successful boom or bust back (occasional long run, but overall a very low Running Back Success Rate). Ben Tate, on the other hand, never really had a meaningful carry all year, and racked up his yardage against the Sisters of the Poor. At wide receiver, neither Rodgerigus Smith or Prechae Rodriguez were particularly good last year, and they both need to make major strides in 2007. Will the offensive skill position players step up and give Auburn an explosive threat, or will they be in for another mediocre year on offense?

(3) Though defensive end Quentin Groves returns, Auburn did lose their best cornerback, David Irons? Auburn had a decent pass defense in 2006, but nothing particularly good, finish sixth in the conference in opposing quarterback passer rating. Will the loss of Irons spell a mediocre, or perhaps worse, year for the pass defense, or will we see some improvement and really see the Auburn defense blossom into one of the best in the country?

(4) Auburn loses both specialty kickers, place-kicker John Vaugn, and punter Kody Bliss. Vaughn was arguably the best kicker in the conference when not playing LSU, and Bliss was without doubt the best punter in the conference. Their replacements will have big shoes to fill to say the least. Can the new Auburn kicker win games that come down to place-kicking, and can the new punter keep the field position battles tilted in his team's favor?

Arkansas

(1) The Mitch Mustain Melodrama has headed West, but quarterback play is still a major issue for the Hogs. Casey Dick will be the starter, but Dick has never looked particularly good in the past, even with arguably the best running game in the country at his disposal. He's generally played like, well, dick. Regardless of how good McFadden and Jones are, it's going to be quite tough for them to really take off with no effective passing game. So, how will Dick and the passing game develop in 2007?

(2) The Hogs had arguably the best offensive line in the conference in 2007, but it must now be almost completely rebuilt from top-to-bottom. Of course, offensive line play is key to the running game, and even with fantastic backs, you aren't going to have a great running game if your offensive line is struggling. Considering the absolute necessity that the Arkansas running game being great in 2007 (due to a likely poor passing game), can the inexperienced Arkansas offensive line congeal and produce like their predecessors so that McFadden and Jones can make for a truly great Arkansas rushing attack?

(3) Two starters from last year's defensive line, Keith Jackson and Jamaal Anderson, are gone. The two returning starters are also questionable. Antwain Robinson (of Andre Smith fame) was arrested for theft in a local Dillard's department store, and Marcus Harrison is still hurting from a Spring knee injury that resulted in torn cartilage and a bone bruise. He missed the rest of Spring, and nearly all off-season conditioning work, and will likely miss the season opener as well. Can the Arkansas defensive line be as stout as last year, or are they in for a long year of getting shoved around by opposing big uglies?

(4) Defensive line worries aside, the Arkansas defense loses quite a bit in the back seven, including leader Sam Olajabutu, and star cornerback Chris Houston, among others. Can the Hogs quickly rebuild the back seven, in light of defensive line concerns, or will inexperienced players yield a relatively poor overall defense?

LSU

(1) Matt Flynn is a fifth-year senior, and the Bayou Bengals will sink or swim with him. His health is a concern, but it's not a question mark. If he goes down for any significant time, LSU is unlikely to get anywhere near where they want to go, no real uncertainty about that. In reality, the question mark surrounds a single fact: he has never really played before. He may be good, he may be poor. He's only seen meaningful playing time once in his career, in the 2005 Peach Bowl. There he did well with the help of a great rushing attack against an ACC team of questionable quality (Miami). To be quite frank, to this point, his resume is exactly like that of former Alabama quarterback Brian Burgdorf. If you don't recall, Burgdorf signed with Alabama in the early 1990's, but never played because of the presence of Jay Barker. Finally, after Barker tore his ACL against Auburn in 1993, Burgdorf took over for the Gator Bowl, and went 15-23 for 166 yards and 2 passing touchdowns, plus 6 carries for another 48 yards and a touchdown, leading the Tide to a win over an ACC team of questionable quality (North Carolina). It was his only legitimate playing time, and people had high hopes for when he finally assumed the starting job. Of course, Burgdorf, when he finally assumed the starting job as a fifth-year senior in 1995, only after Barker graduated, was a complete flop, and quickly found his way to the bench. Will Matt Flynn be good enough to get the job done, or will he fade away in the spotlight, and become the LSU version of Brian Burgdorf?

(2) The LSU offensive line wasn't particularly good last year, and they really struggled in terms of run blocking. Their only saving grace was in pass protection, where an incredible deep threat passing game, and an almost un-sackable quarterback combined to make their life very easy. With Russell, Bowe, Davis, and offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher gone, the deep threat passing game is largely gone too. The new look under Gary Crowton will feature a lot of short passes, and should require a much improved running game, and all of that means the LSU offensive line must improve drastically if they want offensive production be as good as it was a year ago. Ciron Black and Brett Helms are good players, and so is Will Arnold (voted pre-season All-SEC), but even Les Miles isn't sure just how much Arnold can even practice, much less play, due to a variety of injuries that have plagued him the past couple of yearas. Worse still, the now-former offensive line coach Stacey Searels is gone to Georgia, and the line will have to adjust to new offensive line coach Greg Studrawa's blocking schemes. At bottom, is this line going to step up and give the rest of the LSU offense the full opportunity to get the most production possible, or is it going to remain so-so and force the Bayou Bengal faithful to hope that Matt Flynn is really that good and the rest of the skill position players can put points on the scoreboard, despite mediocre line play?

(3) The LSU defense should be good, no two ways about it. The loss of LaRon Landry and Jesse Daniels will hurt, but it should still be very good. However, last year, the Tiger defense was the epitome of great injury luck, as no starter missed any legitimate playing time. If LSU is to have that good of a defense again this year, they'll have to get the same injury luck, and that may not happen two years in a row. A couple of key injuries (particularly if Glenn Dorsey's leg injuries get worse) could quickly turn this great defense into a good but not great defense, and that could be a death knell for LSU's chances to get to where they want to go. Will the LSU defense be able to stay healthy enough to fulfill its lofty expectations?

(4) For a team with such high expectations, LSU has a good deal of changes on the coaching staff, and they all come on the offensive side of the ball. Long-time offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher went to Florida State for the same position, and offensive line coach Stacey Searels went to Georgia for the same position. Moreover, wide receivers coach Todd Monken went to the Jacksonville Jaguars, where he, too, assumes the same position. And, well, that leaves a lot of big question marks for an offense that already has quite a few question marks as it is (see questions one and two). Gary Crowton is the new offensive coordinator, and no one really knows what he is going to bring. If it's anything like he showed at Oregon or BYU, though, it's going to be nothing like LSU has ran before. And who knows how the wide receivers and offensive line will adjust to new coaches (D.J. McCarthy and Greg Studrawa) and, likely, new techniques? Generally speaking, the LSU offense has a good deal of talent, but aside from raw talent, there are a lot of question marks, and three new offensive coaches only highlight that underlying reality. Will the LSU offense be able to successfully integrate the coaching changes and still be productive, or will the very high volume of coaching turnover be just one more obstacle that will keep them from replicating the offense's successes of a year ago?

Mississippi State

(1) Believe it or not, Mississippi State did something down the stretch in 2006 that it hadn't done in a long time: they played competitive football. After playing West Virginia tough for three quarters, they blew out Jacksonville State. After that, they lost a heartbreaker to 9-4 Georgia, in Athens, after a game-ending fumble that occurred at the Georgia 23, well within field goal range. After that, it was another hearbreaking three-point loss, this time to 8-4 Kentucky. From there, we know what happened, they became a crimson nightmare, and got Mike Shula fired in the process. A week later, they out-gained 10-4 Arkansas by 100 yards, but lost a close game largely due to special teams breakdowns. In the season finale, they out-gained Ole Miss by over 100 yards, in Oxford, before losing another heartbreaker on a special teams breakdown. Can Mississippi State carry that competitive play into 2007, or will it be a half-year aberration?

(2) The Mississippi State offense must have Chad Henig stay healthy, no questions there. Another injury to Henig is simply an unacceptable scenario for the Dawgs if they want to do well offensively in 2007. The question is, even if Henig can stay healthy, can they consistently produce yards and points?

(3) Despite competitive play a year ago in the second half of the season, special teams play really doomed Mississippi State, specifically with a kick return for a touchdown from Arkansas, and a game-winning punt return for a touchdown against Ole Miss. Beyond that, all in all, they simply weren't good in terms of special teams in 2006. Will special teams improve, or will they again be the final blow to Mississippi State's chances of winning close games?

(4) The Mississippi State defense has more question marks than a mystery novel, and even their faithful are very concerned over it. Quentin Culbertson is gone, and there are some question marks at linebacker. The defensive line, despite having Titus Brown (one of the most underrated players around) has no real depth or experience, and it is likely to give up some massive rushing days. Even the secondary is unsettled with position changes. Will the Mississippi State defense be able to form and produce a good enough effort to give their team as a whole a chance to win games?

Ole Miss

(1) Seth Adams is the starter at quarterback, no real doubt about it. Brent Schaeffer, the savior from a year ago, will be the back-up, and Johnny Reb will sink or swim with Mr. Adams Adams. And, believe it or not, Adams has a decent unit around him, particularly in the backfield, and he looked good in Spring practice. Can Adams consistently lead the Ole Miss offense to a decent amount of yards and points points, all the while protecting the football, or will he implode in a Schaeffer-esque meltdown of no production and costly turnovers?

(2) The Rebels are, objectively speaking, about the youngest team in the conference, and last year they played a scary amount of true freshmen. But, you have to give credit where its due, a lot of the young guys showed some raw talent in 2006. Obviously, much of Ole Miss' overall success will be directly linked to how quickly can their young players can develop into quality, SEC-caliber players. So, will the young Rebels be able to make the quick leap from young to quality, experienced football players in the course of less than two years?

(3) Patrick Willis was arguably the best defensive player in the country last year, and he was really the key to what little defensive successes the Rebels had. Obviously, Willis has now moved on to the next level, and Ole Miss must find a replacement. Can Ole Miss find a remotely similar replacement, or will they suffer from what Alabama fans may call Demeco Ryans Replacement Syndrome?

(4) Aside from Patrick Willis' linebacker position, there are ten other defensive positions that are just as important. Unfortunately, the Rebs generally didn't fare too well at those positions last year, and they lose a lot of those starters to graduation for the 2007 season. True, it's not like they lose any great players, but nonetheless they still have to rebuild. Can the replacements play to a productive-enough level to where the Rebels will have a chance to improve upon 4-8 and challenge for a small bowl game, or will defensive miscues be the ultimate factor in dooming the Rebels to a fourth straight losing season?

Recruiting Rankings: Do They Matter?

It's almost a timeless question: Do recruiting rankings really matter? Does highly-rated recruiting classes mean that you will win a lot of football games in the future? In more statistical terms, do recruiting rankings correlate with future team performance?

As said earlier, it's essentially a timeless questions, and just about every college football fan you'll ever run across will have an opinion on the subject one way or the other.

So I want to see how it stacks up empirically, and to that end I've done some research on the subject.

Basically this is what I've done: I've taken the team recruiting rankings from 2002-2004 from both Scout.com and Rivals, Inc, the two major recruiting services. Once compiling the data as to where each SEC team ranked in those three years (on a national basis, out of the one-hundred plus Division 1-A teams), I simply divided by three and came up with a three-year average recruiting finish for each SEC school. I took that three-year average recruiting finish, and ranked all twelve SEC schools on it, from one to twelve. From there, I stepped forward in time a bit, compiling the overall win-loss records (note overall, not conference) for each SEC team in the three-year stretch of 2004-2006. After that, I ranked the SEC teams by overall winning percentages, and then I started to compare all of the information that I compiled.

So here we go. The following is the three-year rankings for Scout.com, including the three-year average recruiting finish, and the conference rank:



And now here is the exact same data, except this time using Rivals, Inc. as the source:



Now that those two are out of the way, next let's move on to the three-year overall records in terms of winning percentage:



So that's basically all of the data in a spreadsheet format, for those who wanted it. But we can trim all of that down, simplify it greatly, and make things just much more easy to comprehend by collapsing a lot of that into one spreadsheet image, so here goes:



At bottom, Scout Rank is where that particular team finished among SEC teams in average recruiting rankings, and Rivals Rank is the exact same thing except it, of course, uses the Rivals, Inc. data. Win Rank is simply how that particular team finished among SEC teams in overall winning percentage the past three years.

So, all of that out of the way, what do we see?

It's quickly obvious that there is a very high correlation between good recruiting classes and future wins. If you run the numbers, there is a .8 correlation between Scout.com average recruiting finish rankings and future winning percentage rankings. And there's actually a little higher correlation for Rivals, Inc. as it crunches out at a robust .818.

What can you say? That's a pretty solid case. After all, a correlation in the neighborhood of .8 is very high, no two ways about it.

Moreover, just eyeball it, things are generally dead on. Take a look at the Scout.com average finish rankings. All told, eight of the twelve SEC teams finished in terms of winning percentage rank either exactly where they finished in Scout.com average recruit finish rankings, or within +/- one spot. The same goes for Rivals, Inc. as well. Again with Rivals, Inc. that same occurrence happened with eight teams. Beyond that, it's just elementary. The teams that did well in recruiting (LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee) are the ones that generally did well on the field, and the ones who struggled in recruiting (Ole Miss, MSU, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Alabama) generally struggled on the field.

Again, what can you really say? Despite some people vehemently arguing to the contrary, the harsh statistical truth is that high recruiting rankings do correlate very highly with future wins, no two ways about it. Aside from a couple of exceptions (mostly Auburn), you just aren't going to finish low in terms of recruiting rankings and do particularly well in the SEC in the coming years.

I think you have to give the recruiting services a good deal of credit here. I personally believe they have improved by leaps and bounds over the over-inflated rankings of the late 1990's, and today they generally present very accurate overall projections. Sure, they miss on individual players (of course, nothing is perfect, and granted individual prospect ratings are very speculative), but as a whole, average team rankings over the course of several years seem to make a major impact later on in terms of how many games you win.

So, at the end of the day, to answer the question, "Do recruiting rankings matter?" Yes, they matter very much.

2007 Roster Released

Finally, the 2007 roster has been released at RollTide.com.

I wanted to track the weight changes a bit, and that has been relatively interesting stuff. Generally speaking, guys who needed to get bigger have generally done so, and those that needed to trim down have seemingly done so as well.

A few notes on that front:

• D.J. Hall, who nearly everyone pointed out needed to get more physical, gained 9 pounds, going from 186 to 195.
  

• Jimmy Johns is bigger than ever, up 6 pounds to 233 pounds. No, those rumors of him being up to 250 are obviously incorrect, but he's big, to say the least. I don't think I can ever recall us having a true tailback at over 230 pounds, not in a while at least.
  

• Prince Hall has apparently made major strides, thinning down big time, as all had hoped he would. He has apparently trimmed off 20 pounds, going from 255 to 235.
  

• Justin Woodall, too, has made major strides, going from 213 pounds to 224 pounds. He's legitimately big enough to play linebacker now, but if he stays at safety he is going to be as physical as they come. Just another reason as to why I think he gets a starting job this year.

• Justin Britt has trimmed down by six pounds. Not too surprising considering a lot of people thought dropping a few pounds would help him in pass protection.
  

• Glen Coffee apparently lost a ton of weight. The 2006 roster has him at 225 pounds, but the 2007 roster has him at only 197 pounds. That's a loss of 28 pounds, and unless that is a typo, that is very odd.
  

• B.J. Stabler has apparently gotten in shape, big-time. He was never regarded as a "workout warrior" before, but if the rosters are accurate, that has changed. He has dropped 13 pounds, going from 307 to 294. Big strides from him, and that will certainly make it much easier for him to play right tackle, if that needs to be the case.
  

• Andre Smith has dropped a much needed eight pounds, going from 348 to 340. That's good news, as it could put his actual playing weight around 330-335 during the season itself, so that's definitely good news for us, and well, bad news for everyone else.

• Marlon Davis has really busted his tail in the S&C program, apparently, as he's dropped a full 21 pounds. He has went from 311 to 290.
  

• Mike McCoy has also leaned down big time. 'BamaMag ran an article a couple of weeks ago about how players felt he was really going to surprise this year, and how he had made massive strides in the S&C program. According to the rosters, he has dropped 18 pounds, going from 217 to 199. Apparently he's dropped a lot of weight and got in great shape.
  

• Earl Alexander has gotten bigger, as you would expect from someone with a 6'4 frame. He's gained nine pounds, going from 201 to 210.

• Nick Walker has dropped a good bit of weight, going down 15 pounds from 270 to 255. I think it shows that the coaching staff now is looking for a more nimble guy at tight end who can be a legitimate receiving threat.
  

• Preston Dial, too, has trimmed down big-time. He has dropped 17 pounds, going from 240 to 223. At 223 pounds, I don't see him at tight end. I'm imagining that the coaching staff has him pegged for the H-back position. He certainly has the athleticism from that spot to be a threat.
  

• Lorenzo Washington has bulked up a good bit, gaining 14 pounds. He went up from 269 to 283. He's still too small for defensive tackle, but he could play end quite well at that weight.
  

• Brandon Fanney dropped a ton of weight, as expected. He has moved from the defensive line to the Jack position, and has dropped 12 pounds. He has went from 253 to 241. Not too surprising, I don't believe.
  

All in all, it seems to be very positive stuff from the off-season S&C program. Guys who needed to get bigger generally got bigger, and guys who needed to trim down generally got smaller. It's good news, on the surface. I can't recall us ever making leaps like this in the S&C program under Shula.

Finally, the incoming freshmen have also been added to the roster, so I'll go ahead and post the reporting weights for a few players:

• Rolando McClain reported as the absolute beast that everyone expected. It's no secret he had been following the Saban workout regimen religiously with his own personal trainer, and it shows. He showed up at 6'4 and 255 pounds, and everything I have seen has people gushing over his condition. Much like how Jimmy Johns blew everyone away a couple of years ago.
  

• Luther Davis reported at 6'4 and 275 pounds. That's good news, to say the least. At 275 pounds, he could easily see playing time at defensive end this year.
  

• Alfred McCullough apparently gained a good bit of weight from the end of his senior season, and reported at 317 pounds.
  

• Josh Chapman, too, showed up at a nice weight, coming in at 300 pounds.
  

• Patrick Crump will almost certainly be headed for a redshirt year. He showed up at 267 pounds, and that's not near big enough to play on the offensive line. Not that he was expected to anyway, but the point remains the same.
  

All in all, it's pretty good news. The defensive linemen generally showed up in good shape. Considering McCullough and Chapman reported at 300 pounds and above, it's likely due to lack of depth alone that they will be destined to play this year. And the same largely goes for Luther Davis as well.

And Rolando McClain looks like he could start from day one.

Seemingly a good news day all the way around.

Clarification: Medical Scholarships

Coach Saban announced earlier today that four players had been placed on medical scholarship: Tyrone Prothro, Byron Walton, Jake Jones, and Aaron McDaniel.

But exactly what does "medical scholarship" mean in real terms? Essentially it means their football days are over.

Coach Saban specifically said:

[W]hen we put guys in these situations, the medical staff is 99.9 percent sure that this is a long-term issue that we are dealing with and it would be unusual that a guy could ever come back.

So, basically, as said earlier, it means in real terms that neither Prothro, Walton, Jones, or McDaniel will ever play football at Alabama again.

Jones had re-occurring leg injuries (no specifics), and McDaniel apparently blew out his knee very badly in the 2006 Arkansas game (missed that one). Prothro has the obvious leg injury, and apparently Byron Walton had some very serious heat-related issues. Saban had this to say:

"This is the one that I really don’t want to get involved with because I don’t know the technical names of this. I think you should ask the medical staff about that one. But this was a heat-related issue that has been reoccurring for him since high school. When he exerted himself at the level that he would have to to condition and do the things that you need to do here, he put himself at tremendous risk. And he actually had issues in the summer conditioning program, went through some tremendous lab work and there is a name for this. It’s not an unusual thing but he would have been in danger of having a heat-related problem or a physical exertion related problem moving forward. And it has something to do with how your muscles break down and how your body dissipates that and how it affects your kidneys and liver with serious issue."

Sounds like very scary stuff. Though I cannot help but wonder why the medical staff didn't notice this when he came out of high school.

Roster Notes

Finally... The University of Alabama football team has reported by Fall practice. As expected, we found out several things as a result. The following is an incomplete list of things we know thus far:

• Tyrone Prothro has been moved to a medical scholarship, and thus will not count against the maximum of 85 scholarships. He can return to play football at a later date, however. According to Nick Saban, there is a plan in place, and if -- and it's reasons like this as to why they say if is the biggest word in the English language -- he can become healthy again, he will get a sixth year of eligibility from the NCAA and be able to play again. For now, though, he will miss all of 2007 and be on a medical scholarship.
  

• Michael Ricks did not qualify, contrary to his own reports. As a result, he will not be playing for Alabama this year, or at any point in the future. I imagine we as a whole should stop trusting the specifics of what he says.
  

• Johnathon Lowe, the shifty kick returner transfer from Mississippi Stat who was expected to return some kicks this year, is academically ineligible, and will not play in the 2007 season. No word one way or the other on his future, though I would imagine he would stay with the team and try to regain his eligibility.
  

• Ezekiel Knight has been given a medical hardship waiver, and will thus be a junior, not a senior. This is huge news for us, because Knight, with the extra year, will likely take over for Keith Saunders at the Jack position when Keith graduates after the 2007 season.
  

• Darren Mustin, the walk-on transfer Mike from Middle Tennessee State, has been moved to a scholarship. We will still, however, be under the limit of 85. Congratulations on a job well done, Darren.
  

• Byron Walton, a freshman defensive tackle, has also been moved to a medical scholarship. All that is said now for a reason is "heat-related issues," so I have no clue on this one. I was not expecting him to play very much, but I certainly was not expecting this. Apparently it was a major problem that could have serious repercussions, so he is on the shelf for 2007.
  

• Jake Jones, a freshman wide receiver out of Mountain Brook (and son of former Tide legend Joey Jones), has also been moved to a medical scholarship. It is listed as leg related, but again I have no clue. He missed all of Spring and all of summer workouts with the same affliction, but I have no clue as what is precisely wrong.
  

• Nick Gentry, the 2007 signee from Prattville, will start Fall practice rehabilitating a shoulder injury that required surgery, and will not partake in team drills. In other words, he'll likely redshirt this year, and coaches will try to figure out where to play him. The injury is a high school injury that the coaching staff and the Alabama medical staff advised him to have corrected via a surgical procedure. Again, most likely it means a redshirt is on the way for Mr. Gentry.
  

• Terry Grant was not mentioned as getting a medical hardship waiver. I fully expect him to be granted one, but as of this point, it has not been officially indicated.
  

• Kerry Murphy, as expected, did not qualify, and will now enroll at Hargrave in the coming weeks. Hopefully he can become eligible and return to the Tide next Fall. Lord knows we could use him at defensive tackle.
  

• Ross Applegate has transferred to Alabama. Applegate is a 6'5, 197 pound freshman quarterback who had committed to Boston College a year ago. He is from Marietta, Georgia, and is now with the Tide. No reason as to why he transferred.
  

Apparently the roster will be posted in the coming days on RollTide.com, so we'll see if there are any more changes, but for now that is it.

Recruiting Analysis: 2002-2005

I usually try to take any research topic suggestions that I can get, and a good one came from a friend and reader of this blog. It's a pretty simple topic really: take every four and five star recruit that we have signed the past several years and see how they have panned out. He felt that we tended to get more quality players from two and three stars than from four and five stars.

So, let's look at it.

The Scout.com recruiting database goes back to the 2002, so let's start there. We'll go from 2002-2005, looking at each four and five star recruit that we have picked up in that four-year stretch, and then broke each one of them down individually.

All told, from 2002-2005, we signed fifteen four or five star recruits, according to Scout.com. They include:

Kyle Tatum
Chris Browder
David Scott
Derrick Pope
Jeremy Clark
Le'Ron McClain
Chris Felder
Matt Caddell
Dominic Lee
Chris Felder
Lorenzo Washington
B.J. Stabler
Nikita Stover
Brandon Deaderick
Mike Ford
Chris Keys
Brandon Fanney

So that's the total list. It includes fifteen guys over a four year period, fourteen of which four-star recruits, with one being a five-star recruit (Derrick Pope).

Now let's break them down individually:

Kyle Tatum was a four-star defensive line prospect out of Prattville. He was generally considered one of the top linemen in the state, and could have went anywhere in the country. He signed with Alabama, and then redshirted, as expected. He played as a redshirt freshman in 2003, and looked pretty good; people loved his intensity and his motor. Then, Shula moved him to right tackle, where he effectively fell into a black hole in 2004 and 2005. He started, but wasn't very good, and finally in 2006 he was apparently in Shula's doghouse, and that was the end of his career.

Chris Browder was a highly touted defensive end, rated as a four-star the 26th best defensive end in the country. He did not qualify academically, and went to junior college. He resurfaced a couple of years later with Auburn, but as far as I can tell never made any real impact.

David Scott was a four-star JUCO cornerback out of Mississippi. He signed with two years of eligibility, and played a fair amount as a nickel corner in both 2002 and 2003. It's not to say he was a bad player, but everyone thought he would be a true shutdown corner when he signed, and the truth was he never even became a starter.

Derrick Pope was a five-star JUCO linebacker, and he was as good as billed. He played great in 2002, and was about the only bright spot in 2003. The only problem was, as with most JUCO players, he was only here for two years.

Jeremy Clark was a four-star defensive line recruit out of Daphne, second only in the state to Kyle Tatum. And he started most of his career at Alabama, but he was never an impact player of any sort. At best, he was pretty mediocre, and the main reason he started was because of an overall lack of quality depth at the position.

Le'Ron McClain was a four-star running back recruit, and generally regarded as the top fullback in the country. He lived up to that expectation fully. He became qualified, started four years, and when he left was he was considered the best pure fullback in the country.

Matt Caddell was a four-star wide receiver recruit and a member of the vaunted triumvirate of receivers to come out of the state in 2003 (the other two were Chad Jackson and Jayson Swaine). Unfortunately, Caddell has struggled at Alabama, and has never developed into a consistent. He looked good as a freshman in 2004, especially considering the poor quarterback play that year, but he hasn't done anything since. He has made a few memorable catches (2004 LSU comes to mind), but generally struggled with tentative play and poor hands. Going into his senior season in 2006, he seems, at the very least, behind D.J. Hall, Keith Brown, and Nikita Stover on the depth chart.

Dominic Lee was a four-star recruit out of Huffman, and was generally considered the top defensive line prospect in the state. We signed him, and despite high expectations, he never did much of anything. He never became a consistent starter, and his best times were playing in the defensive tackle rotation as a back-up in 2005 and 2006. His biggest contributions to the Crimson Tide by far was the wooing of his cousin Andre Smith -- yes, that Andre Smith -- to sign with Alabama.

Chris Felder was a four-star cornerback recruit out of Thomasville, Alabama, and he was generally considered one the top cornerback prospects in the country (ranked 13th overall by Scout.com). Unfortunately, he did not qualify academically, and has seemingly fallen off the face of the Earth in terms of information regarding his where-abouts.

Lorenzo Washington was a four-star defensive line recruit generally considered one of the top defensive tackle prospects in the country (ranked 18th in the country by Scout.com), and he was a good student as well. Unfortunately, he shocked everyone by not qualifying, and when he returned after a tour of Hargrave, he didn't exactly set the world on fire. In his two years thus far at Alabama, he has yet to see any meaningful playing time, and has struggled to gain weight. At the moment -- barring major changes in Fall practice -- it is unlikely that he sees meaningful playing time this season.

B.J. Stabler was a four-star recruit, and was generally considered one of the best offensive line prospects in the country (ranked 26th by Scout.com). And, honestly, he has done pretty well, it's obvious the kid has a good deal of talent. Unfortunately, leg injuries have slowed him, and are apparently still slowing him. Either way, though, when he has been healthy, he has started the past two years, and will do so again in 2007.

Nikita Stover was a four-star recruit, generally considered the top wide receiver prospect in Alabama, and in the country (ranked 14th overall by Scout.com). He didn't qualify, and went to junior college, finally arriving at the Capstone for the 2006 season. He showed promise late in the year, despite conditioning problems, and will see a lot of playing time in 2007. Odds are that he will start in 2008.

Brandon Deaderick was a four-star defensive line recruit out of Kentucky. He was highly-touted, by like so many other players he hasn't been able to find a definite position (either end or tackle), and has never played any meaningful snaps. Honestly, I did not hear his name mentioned a single time this Spring. And then he raised some hell on the Strip and was arrested. I assumed that, as I type, he's running his butt off, and probably about to vomit somewhere. That's graphic, I know, but probably nonetheless true.

Mike Ford was a four-star tailback recruit out of Florida, and considered one of the best in the country (18th overall by Scout.com). He didn't qualify initially, went to Hargrave, and didn't qualify the second time around. After that, he ended up at South Florida somehow or another, and he was expected to play this Fall. And then it comes out that he has been arrested for a variety of offenses.

Chris Keys was a four-star safety prospect, and was considered one of the best in the country (7th overall by Scout.com). He was committed to LSU, but left when Nick Saban went to Miami, and jumped ship the Tide. He had a lot of talent, but couldn't stay out of trouble. Finally, Mike Shula -- unable to control him -- kicked him off the team. He's playing football now at a lower level, but I forget where.

Brandon Fanney -- coming out of Hargrave -- was a four-star defensive line recruit. He hasn't seen any meaningful snaps so far, but that may change. He's been moved to the Jack position, but he was involved in the incident on the Strip. Much like Deaderick, it's likely that as I type, he's running his butt off and probably about to vomit at the moment. Again, graphic but true.

So that's it. That is all fifteen of the four and five star recruits that we signed from 2002-2005.

To break it down further:

• One player was a five-star (Pope).

• Fourteen players were four-stars.

• Three of the fifteen never qualified academically (Browder, Felder, and Ford).

• One player was kicked off the team (Keys).

• Three players qualified, but nevertheless never lived up to anywhere near their expectations, for whatever reason (Tatum, Lee, and Scott). All three have since graduated / eligibility expired.

• Two players really lived up to their expectations and did as well as everyone expected they would (McClain and Pope).
  

• Three players qualified, are currently on the team, but unfortunately none of the three have lived up to expectations thus far, nor do they seem destined for any legitimate playing time in 2007 barring some Fall practice surprises (Washington, Fanney, and Deaderick).

• Two players are currently on the roster, showing promise, with two years of eligibility left, and both seemingly are in line to be good, quality football players before they leave after the 2008 season (Stabler and Stover).
  

All told, it's not too good.

And the reader is correct, we have gotten more good players out of two and three star prospects than we have four and five star prospects. With that said, however, I wouldn't read much into that. Yes, more good players emerged from the two and three star prospects, but two and three star prospects also comprised about 80% of our overall classes, so it only makes sense that more of those guys turned out to be good players. After all, they outnumbered the four and five stars at a rate of about 4:1, so that's how it should be.

So it really doesn't say anything bad about the recruiting services, for the most part.

What it does show, however, is the complete lack of highly rated recruits that we have signed. On average, we racked up less than four of the four or five star recruits per year, and that's simply nowhere near enough. As mentioned earlier, roughly 80% of our classes over a four-year stretch was comprised by recruits rated three stars and later. Hell, it's still one month until kick-off, and Nick Saban has already racked up six four star recruits thus far, and honestly we'll probably have at least eight by the end of August. Truth be told, Saban and company will reel in almost as many, if not as many, four and five star recruits in this recruiting class alone as we reeled in, as a whole, in the four-year stretch from 2002-2005.

Moreover, it is also an indication of poor coaching. Never underestimate the importance of good coaching in getting a prospect to realize his full potential, and you have to be brutally honest: the guys we signed from 2002-2005 simply, for the most part, did not get it. Great prospects will often times become poor-to-average players with poor-to-average coaching, and I think that is reflected to a degree here.

Again, it's not really an indicator of poor ratings. The raw number of four and five star recruits is mainly an indictment of terrible recruiting in that stretch, more than anything else. And, fortunately, that latter has drastically changed since Nick Saban stepped off of that airplane in early January.

The rest is largely an indictment of poor coaching. And fortunately, that, too, has drastically changed in the past few months.

Roster Screengrab: Just In Case

Members of The University of Alabama football will officially report tomorrow on Thursday.

One word, when hyphenated, comes to mind: Whoo-Hoo!

When the players report, they will be given numbers, so that will end speculation on that front. I know it's pointless, but I always enjoy seeing who gets what. But anyway...

Moreover, and more importantly, a new roster should be forthcoming, and hopefully that new roster will also include official weights. Now don't get me wrong, I understand the pitfalls of "official" weights, but it will be nice to compare the two if they do actually update the player weights.

Obviously, it could give us a big clue as to the strides we've apparently been making in the strength and conditioning program. No doubt about, if we are to improve, first and foremost we must get bigger, faster, and in better condition, and that could give us an initial indicator of the progress we are making.

So, just in case they do update the weights, etc., I took a Screengrab of the 2007 Spring roster so we will have something to compare it to if the new roster contains all of those updates.

Hopefully they will update everything in the next few days, and that will give us some concrete information as to the gains that individual players have made in the S&C program.

Home Field Advantage: More Ramblings

In the last post, I looked at home field advantage and generally made the case that it does not have a legitimate impact on the outcome of games, and any advantage that it generates -- if there is any at all -- is essentially so small that it is statistically insignificant.

In this post, things will be a bit more general and a bit more rambling, with little concrete conclusions. That aside, it will still contain relevant things.

For starters, exactly what gives home teams an advantage?

In football, unlike baseball, the dimensions of the playing field are static, and never change regardless of where you play. It doesn't matter if you play in Tacoma, Washington or Miami, Florida, the field is still 100 yards long, 53 1/2 yards wide, with two end zones both 10 yards long. The uprights, too, are the same. The base of the crossbar is 10 feet high, and the width of the uprights is 16 1/2 feet. Same goes for the pylons: 4 inches by 4 inches, and 18 inches high. Hell, even the directional arrows by the yard markers are the exact same: an isosceles triangle with two sides at 36 inches, and the base at 18 inches. At bottom, there are no differences whatsoever in the dimensions of the field, regardless of where you play, so it's not like baseball where hitter's parks v. pitcher's parks can give a particular team an advantage.

Moreover, there's no special object on the field to make a difference. In basketball, though the dimensions of the court never change, different arenas have different tightness levels to the rim, and that can dramatically change a team's shooting abilities, and therefore have a major impact on their overall scoring. But again, in football you have nothing like that.

Playing surfaces can make a difference, no doubt there. In the past, particularly in the NFL, teams with fast surfaces (Astro Turf, primarily) built teams around speed, and they would have an advantage at home, and of course when they would go to opposing team's stadiums with poor, slow surfaces, they would be at a disadvantage, thus giving the opposing home team an advantage. But in the SEC -- and most places for that matter -- you just don't have very different playing surfaces. Generally speaking, they are all pretty much the same. Just about everyone uses natural grass, and even the ones that don't use the FieldTurf that is highly similar to natural grass. At bottom, there's nothing between those two that would create an advantage for one team and a disadvantage for the other. Moreover, no one in the SEC pulls a Notre Dame (letting the grass grow ridiculously high and thick before a big game) in order to slow down faster teams. In reality, the only real differences in playing surfaces at SEC schools are the aesthetic differences. At bottom, the playing surfaces are just so similar throughout the SEC that it can't really make any real impact.

Climates, too, can also create an advantage for one team and a disadvantage for others, no doubt about it. Teams used to playing in the muck and mud of a torn up field (a good example is the Chicago Bears), build teams designed to play in those conditions, and when speedy teams that often play in domes (a good example is the New Orleans Saints) must go on the road to play those teams, that creates a distinct advantage for the home team. But again, we really don't have that in the SEC, or anywhere else in college football for that matter. Conferences are so geographically based that the climates are generally the same regardless of which school is in question. The SEC is the perfect example; generally all SEC games are played in roughly the same conditions, aside from a game in which it might randomly rain, and even those are rare (Alabama usually averages less than one game per year that is affected in any way by the rain). So, that too has no real effect.

So then what is it that makes a difference?

Could it be that teams are generally afraid of going on the road?

That's something that I could very easily imagine a juvenile (in terms of maturity, not age) fan saying, but that's really laughable more than anything else. Seriously, exactly what is there to be "afraid" of? For one, players are rarely subjected to physical danger outside the playing field, and even if they were, so what? Modern day Division 1-A football players are largely physical freaks of nature, and they could rip a normal person to shreds if they wanted. You can rest assured they aren't worried about that. So again, what is there to be "afraid" of? Or, forget that, Hell, what is there to not even like about a road trip? Think about it, these guys are chauffeured to airports in swanky buses, with a full police escort the entire way, at which point they board luxurious charter jets. Once boarded, they get big, roomy seats with newly-released in-flight movies, customized to player and coach preferences, and world-class cuisine; sufficed to say, no pack of peanuts and a twelve-ounce Diet Coke for these guys. Once they arrive at the final destination, they unload and again they are chauffeured in swanky buses, with a full police escort, to the finest hotel in the surrounding area. Once there, they are waited on hand and foot, and in most cases later go out on the town. So, again, exactly what is there to be "afraid" of on a road trip? If anything, it seems like these players are having the time of their lives. All I can say is that I wish I got a similar weekend getaway four-to-five times per year for free like those guys do. At bottom, though, as said earlier, this argument is just laughable.

The only thing left that I could think of is crowd noise, and honestly that is the one that is generally most talked about. But exactly what impact does crowd noise have?

Supposedly opposing team's players get "rattled," but I have to admit that I really don't know what that means. And I really don't think there is much to it. Crowd noise is crowd noise, and believe it or not this is not NCAA Football 2008 where players become mentally retarded and physically inept. Much like the "afraid" notion, there's probably not much to this.

The notion that crowd noise affects communication, particularly with audibles, does seem very plausible, which puts it much higher than most other arguments regarding a real rationale for home field advantage. But really, how big of an impact can be that be? As we've seen in the past, coaches at this level are very good, and players are generally well prepared. Coaches know they will be going into loud environments, and they do game-plan accordingly. They install more hand-check audibles (as opposed to verbal audibles shouted out to other players), and they also install default adjustments if an opponent gives a certain look. Moreover, let's be brutally honest here, coaches generally keep their quarterbacks walking the tight and narrow, and most are on a short leash in terms of audibles. They simply aren't allowed to do it very much, for the most part, and the ones that are allowed to do so generally can only check into a few plays. This isn't like the NFL where quarterbacks routinely have the permission to completely change a play to whatever they want at their own volition. So, the impact there is largely limited by quarterbacks not being able to change the play that much in a given situation, particularly one that the coaching staff expected and are therefore presumably prepared for.

Moreover, the most important point regarding crowd noise is that, unlike everyone assumes, it makes it difficult for both teams. Fans don't really cheer for or against anyone, for the most part. At bottom, as a whole, it's just a whole bunch of yelling and screaming, and all told it's just loud. It's not like it's like a rock concert for the road team and it's quite as a museum for the home team. Both must deal with the crowd noise effectively. You may say that the crowd noise affects the road team's offense from audibling, but at the same time it also equally affects the home team's defense from audibling (and yes, defenses do audible, and often times they do it just as much as the offense).

Then some people say that they want the stadium silent when the home team has the ball, but rocking when the opposing team has the ball. And that's absurd, it makes no difference whatsoever. Sure, it's quiet for your offense, but it's quiet for the opposing defense too. You can freely adjust with no crowd interference, and so can they. And of course the exactly same thing goes for the opposite situation, where the noise makes it more difficult to adjust for both the opposing offense and the home defense. There is simply no net advantage for the home team.

At bottom, it's hard to see much of an advantage from crowd noise. After all, how can crowd noise be an advantage for the home team and a disadvantage for the road team, when it seemingly has the exact same strategical effect on both teams?

All told, the crowd noise argument is more plausible than most other rationales for the existence of home field advantage, but it too is not particularly convincing.

And beyond that, how do we know which stadiums are really the loudest?

I know the answer to that one: We don't.

Don't kid yourself, we have no clue whatsoever as to which stadiums are the loudest, nor does anyone who claims to know so. The reason for that is simple: no one has ever done any empirical test whatsoever of stadium noise levels. And until someone does a legitimate empirical study in which they take decibel meters into every Division 1-A stadium and measure the loudness of those stadiums on a consistent basis, and then rank them based on how loud they were on the decibel meter, we won't know. And, of course, no one has ever even attempted something remotely close to that.

Moreover, first person testimonials saying X Stadium is the loudest are simply not legitimate in any real sense. For one, you can find testimonials of people saying about thirty or more different stadiums are the loudest, and that's not quite the case, obviously. There can only be one "loudest" stadium, by definition, period. Moreover, individual testimonies are subject to bias and other perception-based distortions. For any findings to be credible and legitimate, crowd levels must be measured on an objective basis that is free from human biases. Finally -- and this is the main reason first person testimonials are not legitimate -- the level of crowd noise as perceived by an individual is determined almost wholly by the noise in the area immediately surrounding him / her. As a student at Alabama, you would have times in which the stadium seem deafening, but it was really just the student section. Again, from one physical location -- which of course is the most any human can be at during one time-frame -- you are not hearing how loud the entire stadium is, but how loud the immediate area surrounding you at that time. Even if you did a study with decibel meters, you would have to place them strategically throughout the stadium in order to figure out how loud the stadium was as a whole. Again, first person testimonials to stadium noise levels are simply not legitimate.

The bottom line is this with regard to stadium noise levels: Until someone does an empirical study in which they measure the noise levels in stadiums with strategically played decibel meters on a consistent basis, and then does a comparison analysis, we don't know which stadiums are truly the loudest. I don't care how many juvenile fans brag about their stadium being the loudest. I don't care what ESPN sideline reporters say. Bottom line. We. Simply. Do. Not. Know.