I don't follow recruiting; it annoys me. Paying for premium content, cocky 17 year old guys leading people on just to extend our attention; not my thing. Just like athletes I need an off season. A few months where I don't worry about how bad we stink.

This is not to say I don't think recruits are important, I just choose to ignore it until around signing day, which is very soon. That and I never miss an opportunity to do a little analysis.

So how did we do? Eh. Our class is current 15th at rivals.com, but I find that pretty meaningless. The important question is, are we getting the guys we want? The answer: Yes, unless Texas or LSU want them too.

First we look at how we did in head-to-head match ups, by school, broken down by the recruits' star rating (1-5). For the following graphs, I have looked at the head-to-head match ups where A&M and another school have offered a kid a scholarship. The first graph looks at all of those that match ups we have won, and the second those that we have lost.

To combine these two graphs, I use a simple weighted sum for our recruiting "score": you get one point for a one star guy, two points for a two star guy, and so forth; add those up and you get a score. For each school, there is a lost score and a won score; the weighted sum of the guys who picked us over them, and a weighted sum for the guys that picked them over us.
And for a raw comparison, here is the same chart but without weights.
My hope for the future is that Texas and LSU no longer need good players, an lets h0pe that Nebraska doesnt get better because we target many of the same players.