What happened after 8 am?

[Horn69]

ESPNU shows that we were ranked #2 this morning and now we're #5. Others add players? I didn't think we lost anyone that wasn't already known.

Hook'em!!!

 

[Third Coast]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn69]

I really don't see how USC "ranked" above us...They had 11 Signees and 2 Top 150. We had 22 and 7. Don't see how that would lag behind the Trojans. Arrrgh.

Hook'em!!!

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I don't think it matters what number Rivals assigns to us or to USC.

 

[warrior]

I agree it does not matter, as long as you are in Top 10.

 

[NEWDOC2002]

I agree it does not matter as long as you produce on the field, create high percentage winning seasons and have a good resume of conference championships and BCS bowl wins.

Or did they start handing out a big shiny glass football for winning recruiting rankings?

 

[Squall]

Tom Luginbill moved auburn all the way up from #6 to #2 after Cyrus K chose them.

Well now Cyrus hasn't signed and they've removed him from their list and they dropped to 3rd.

so, with out Cyrus K, #6
with Cyrus K, #2
without Cyrus K, #3

you figure it out

 

[hornpharmd]

Rivals now has Texas at #3, USC at #4.

 

[idahohorn]

Anyone in the top 10 is going to get great athletes. What will seperate most of them will be the ability to lift themselves and their teammates to another level. In other words leaders, lets see in a couple of years who those leaders are. No recruiting guru has any idea who these players will be.

 

[MarylandHorn]

Texas was ranked #2 before the day started based on all of the verbals that were already assumed coming to UT. Since the class was already full and locked in, they had no chance of moving up unless someone committed to the #1 team decommitted. As all of the other schools started picking up uncommitted players, they started improving their positions and some of them passed Texas. This was pretty much to be expected unless Texas had ALL of the top players.