BOL Round Table

As others have pointed out, this 2013 USCw class is STRONG on paper. How does it stack up against the 2008 Bama class that is considered by some as the best Bama class ever?

I simply took the 15 commitments from the USCw class and compared them to the 32 signees from the 2008 Bama class.

Some results:

According to Scout:
USCw: avg stars = 4.33; 10 of the top 100; 6 5-star 9 4-star; 11 are in the top 10 in the nation by position (3 are #1 by position)

Bama: avg stars = 3.66; 6 of the top 100; 3 5-star 17 4-star 10 3-star 2 2-star; 7 are in the top 10 in nation by position (2 are #1 by position)

According to Rivals:
USCw: avg stars = 4.20; 12 of the top 100; 3 5-star 12 4-star; 12 are in the top 10 in nation by position (3 are #1 by position)

Bama: avg stars = 3.72; 8 of the top 100; 3 5-star 19 4-star 8 3-star 2 2-star; 9 are in the top 10 in the nation by position (2 are #1 by position)

According to ESPN:
USCw: avg stars = 4.00; 11 of the top 150; 0 5-star 15 4-star; 8 are in top 10 in nation by position (1 is #1 by position)

Bama: star ratings not available; 7 of the top 150; 6 are in the top 10 in the nation by position (3 are #1 by position)

According to 247Sports:
USCw: avg stars = 4.27; 4 5-star 11 4-star; 10 are in the top 100; 10 are in top 10 in nation by position (2 are #1 by position)

Bama: no info available

Conclusions:
Since the Bama class is so much larger, it is obviously deeper. However, the breakdown of the 2 classes favors USCw in most categories. So, the Bama class is deeper, but the USCw class is higher rated at the top. This comparison does not suggest on-the-field performance. It is just a for-fun recruting ranking comparison. I wonder how the USCw class might have been different if they had a full compliment of scholarships to offer? I doubt they could add 10 more of the same quality to this class thus dropping their avg star rating.