With signing day behind us, we wanted to take a final look at the signees who inked scholarship papers with the SEC’s 14 programs yesterday.
As always, we use the star-rankings handed out by Rivals.com as the basis for our comparisons. We assign point values for each star awarded by Rivals.
Below we examine the final numbers using three different methods.
First, we measure Quantity by looking at the total amount of talent brought in by each program:
| School |
Signees |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
2-stars |
1- & 0-stars |
Total Points |
| 1 Alabama |
26 |
3 |
14 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
98 |
| 2 Florida |
23 |
3 |
11 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
85 |
| 2 Miss. State |
28 |
0 |
4 |
21 |
3 |
0 |
85 |
| 4 S. Carolina |
25 |
0 |
8 |
15 |
2 |
0 |
81 |
| 5 Kentucky |
26 |
0 |
1 |
21 |
4 |
0 |
75 |
| 6 LSU |
21 |
0 |
9 |
11 |
1 |
0 |
71 |
| 7 Arkansas |
23 |
0 |
2 |
20 |
1 |
0 |
70 |
| 8 Auburn |
19 |
0 |
11 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
68 |
| 8 Tennessee |
20 |
0 |
10 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
68 |
| 10 Georgia |
19 |
2 |
6 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
66 |
| 10 Vanderbilt |
21 |
0 |
3 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
66 |
| 12 Texas A&M |
19 |
1 |
6 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
65 |
| 13 Missouri |
18 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
1 |
0 |
56 |
| 14 Ole Miss |
17 |
0 |
2 |
12 |
3 |
0 |
50 |
Next, we examine Quality by comparing the average amount of points awarded to each school’s prospects:
| School |
Signees |
Avg. Points Per Player |
| 1 Alabama |
26 |
3.76 |
| 2 Florida |
23 |
3.69 |
| 3 Auburn |
19 |
3.57 |
| 4 Georgia |
19 |
3.47 |
| 5 Texas A&M |
19 |
3.42 |
| 6 Tennessee |
20 |
3.40 |
| 7 LSU |
21 |
3.38 |
| 8 S. Carolina |
25 |
3.24 |
| 9 Vanderbilt |
21 |
3.14 |
| 10 Missouri |
18 |
3.11 |
| 11 Arkansas |
23 |
3.04 |
| 12 Miss. State |
28 |
3.03 |
| 13 Ole Miss |
17 |
2.94 |
| 14 Kentucky |
26 |
2.88 |
Finally, we look at only the High-End Signees inked by each school. The more four- and five-star recruits signed, the better a team’s odds of finding some true playmakers:
| School |
5-stars |
4-stars |
Total |
| 1 Alabama |
3 | 14 | 17 |
| 2 Florida |
3 |
11 |
14 |
| 3 Auburn |
0 |
11 |
11 |
| 4 Tennessee |
0 |
10 |
10 |
| 5 LSU |
0 |
9 |
9 |
| 6 Georgia |
2 |
6 |
8 |
| 6 S. Carolina |
0 |
8 |
8 |
| 8 Texas A&M |
1 |
6 |
7 |
| 9 Miss. State |
0 |
4 |
4 |
| 10 Vanderbilt |
0 |
3 |
3 |
| 11 Arkansas |
0 |
2 |
2 |
| 11 Missouri |
1 |
1 |
2 |
| 11 Ole Miss |
0 |
2 |
2 |
| 14 Kentucky |
0 |
1 |
1 |
To arrive at our final MrSEC.com Recruiting Rankings, we tally up the standings from each category and weight them equally… as each — in our view — is important when trying to determine the true strength of a school’s recruiting class.
| School |
Quantity |
Quality |
High-End Signees |
Total |
| 1 Alabama |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
| 2 Florida |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
| 3 Auburn |
8 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
| 4 LSU |
6 |
7 |
5 |
18 |
| 4 S. Carolina |
4 |
8 |
6 |
18 |
| 4 Tennessee |
8 |
6 |
4 |
18 |
| 7 Georgia |
10 |
4 |
6 |
20 |
| 8 Miss. State |
2 |
12 |
9 |
23 |
| 9 Texas A&M |
12 |
5 |
8 |
25 |
| 10 Arkansas |
7 |
11 |
11 |
29 |
| 10 Vanderbilt |
10 | 9 | 10 |
29 |
| 12 Kentucky |
5 |
14 |
14 |
33 |
| 13 Missouri |
13 |
10 |
11 |
34 |
| 14 Ole Miss |
14 |
13 |
11 |
38 |
(Those final rankings were posted while sitting in the very loud waiting room of a doctor’s office. If there’s a typo in the charts above, it’ll be corrected soon.)





